Minutes (Version 0.2 of 2009- 9-14 12:37)

Agenda:

1 Welcome and Discussion of Agenda

2 Report on Activities of Participants
Each participant is asked to prepare a brief report on recent activities contributing to the specific activities as listed in the Task Sheet. Written reports for inclusion in the Task Sheet should be submitted before July 20, 2009 to the Task POC.

3 Review of the Task Sheet
The current Task Sheet has a number of missing parts, which need to be completed. Drafts will be made available for Resources , Capacity Building , User Engagements , and Science and Technology prior to the meeting and discussed by e-mail. These parts will be reviewed briefly. The main part of the Task Sheet Review will focus on the expected output of the Task.

4 Review of Activity 1: Links with major scientific research enterprises
This activity has three sub-activities:

1. High-level list of major scientific research enterprises necessary for GEOSS: ICSU is asked to report on the status of the list, which should be available early in 2010. Coordination with ST-09-01 is an issue, too.
2. Identification the key organizations currently not linked to GEO and development of mechanisms for linkage to these organizations. Participants are asked to consider commitment to this activity. All participants should provide organizations in their field that should but are not linked to GEO. Mechanisms for linkage include individual contacts, for example, at relevant meetings, presentations by participants at relevant meetings, official invitations through the GEO Secretariat, etc. More proposals for mechanisms are welcome.
3. Organize, support, launch, or initiate, where necessary, workshops to network the new organizations with relevant Task Team and CoPs in the different SBA. Although this activity is not planned until 2011 or 2012, it could also be worthwhile to consider some workshops already in 2010, depending on which organizations have joined GEO. New organizations definitely need an introduction to GEO and the relevant processes in GEO, in order to reduce friction caused by misunderstandings.

5 Review of Activity 2: Encourage scientists and technical experts to contribute to GEOSS
This activity has three sub-activities:

1. Getting GEOSS acknowledged: The immediate activity is to propose a GEOSS citation standard, which would provide the means for visible acknowledgment of scientific contributions to GEOSS whenever GEOSS products or services are used. The goal is to have this proposal ready for the GEO Plenary in 2009. All Participants are asked to contribute ideas. However, one participant should volunteer to take the lead.
2. Establishing a "GEO label": Develop a concept for a "GEO label" related to the scientific relevance, quality, acceptance and societal needs for activities in support of GEOSS as an attractive incentive for involvement of the S and T communities. A draft concept will be proposed in early 2010 liaising with existing major Earth observation data providers.
3. Enhancing registration of relevant scientific data sets. Increase relevance and benefits of GEOSS registries for scientific communities as a means for dissemination and a source of core data sets, which are often produced by science organizations and needed for both research and GEOSS services. Accomplishing this through targeted contacts with relevant groups will dramatically increase the acceptance of GEOSS in the S+T communities as a resource for accessing scientific data and further motivate registration.

6 Review of Activity 3: Outreach to diverse scientific and technological communities in order to make GEOSS more visible and attractive
This activity has the following sub-activities:

1. Support outreach of GEO Principals, Committee members and other delegates to S and T communities by the provision of a slide library (ppt): This activity was intended to produce results already in June 2009. An example of the slide library is available here ... More input is needed, e.g. from the GEO Secretariat.
2. Compile a set of compelling examples showing how GEOSS serves S and T communities in their work. This activity is intended to strongly feed into the preparations for the Ministerial in 2010. A participant needs to commit to lead this activity, which requires coordination with the GEO Secretariat since the examples should be made available through the GEO Web page.
3. Showing "GEOSS at Work" through games using GEOSS products. This is led by IEEE, and includes promotion of young scientist activities through the "Save Earth Game Price" established by IEEE. A report will be given/provided.

7 Review of Activity 4: Specific efforts to contact universities and research laboratories with the goal to involve them in GEOSS activities.
This activity has the following sub-activities:

1. Outreach to major university cooperation programs and research network.
2. Proactive collaboration between GEO Tasks and S and T activities at universities and labs. Although this is planned to take place from 2010 onwards, it would be helpful to have a participant commit to lead this activity.
3. Transition from research to operational (2010 onwards). A first step is to screen information (web-based, survey with the Participating Organizations, other means) for candidate research activities that are relevant for a transition.

8 Review of Activity 5: Presence of GEO at major symposiums and other meetings on different levels.
The steps planned include:

1. Plenary presentations on GEO and GEOSS in relevant sessions at major science events. IEEE committed to lead this and a report it expected.
2. Organize specific session on GEOSS-related topics at major scientific meetings. All participants are asked to report on actions taken and plans.
3. Side events at major scientific meetings. All participants are asked to report on actions taken and plans.
4. Prospectus for a series of SBA-specific major conferences to be convened before 2015. One or more participants need to commit to draft the prospectus, preferably in cooperation with relevant CoPs.

9 Review of the science contents of the GEO Work Plan.
The Task Team is asked to contribute to the development of the concept. Input is requested both with respect to the concept of the process that should be used to carry out this review and the candidate reviewers.

10 Input to the ST-09-01 Task Team meeting
The participants are asked to comment on the feedback ST-09-02 should provide to ST-09-01.

11 Any other business

12 Date and time of next Task Meeting

13 Summary of Action Items

Notes:

1 Welcome and Discussion of Agenda

There were no additions are changes to the proposed agenda.

In a round of introduction, each participant provided a brief description of the background and the relation to the Task.

2 Report on Activities of Participants

• Vojko Bratina reported on the efforts of the European Commission (EC) to facilitate some of the Task activities as well as other GEO-related projects (see the presentation and the full report ). Within the Framework Program 7 (FP7), the EC funds projects related to GEO. The EC requires that these projects include explicit commitments to GEOSS, including registration of data sets and services in GEOSS registries. In 2007, eight projects were funded; in 2008, four projects received funding; for 2009, six projects are currently under negotiation, and in 2010, six projects are expected to be funded. There are also synergies with other projects not directly related to GEO. Vojko Bratina mentioned the important project EUGENE, which organizes a series a of workshops, with the goal of yielding a concrete contribution to the Ministerial Summit in 2010. This project currently focuses on the SBAs Climate, Disasters, and Water. The six GEO-related topics included in the Call for Proposals for 2010, include a specific project relevant for ST-09-02, i.e. the assessment of google-like service related to Earth observations, which could feed into the Task Activity 2.2. There are also topics related to a global observing system for Mercury and the monitoring of national GEO activities and relevant workshops and side events.

  In the subsequent discussion of the report, Stuart Marsh briefly summarized the situation in the U.K. The U.K. had a number of centers of excellence on GEO related activities, but there is currently no U.K. GEO, which turns coordination into a challenge. However, this situation is like to change and there should soon be some coordination within NERC. NERC has agreed to fund the National Centre for Earth Observations (applications for EO data), which will be appointing a GEO coordinator for the UK.

  Douglas Cripe asked how EUGENE would be working with the GEO Task Force for the Ministerial Summit, and Vojko Bratina explained that interactions are anticipated.

  Hans-Peter Plag asked whether there would be a requirement for the potential project relevant for Activity 2.2 to coordinated its activities with ST-09-02. Vojko Bratina responded that the CfP would be published on July 30, 2009, with the call being open until January 15, 2010. After the evaluation of the proposal, the EC would enter in negotiations with the successful proposal and in this negotiation, coordination with the Task would be made an requirement.

  Since resources are dedicated to GEO in the FP7, David Halpern wanted to know whether GEO will be involved in the selection of proposals? Vojko Bratina stated that some effort would be made to include reviewers who are involved in GEO committees, but he also acknowledged that these experts often are likely to be involved in proposals and therefore have a conflict of interest.

  David Halpern summarized the NASA perspective. He reported that NSF and NASA fund research activities relevant but not directly related to GEO. Focus is on the science issues and funding goes mainly into high-level research projects.

• Hans-Peter Plag reported briefly on relevant activities of the International Association of Geodesy (IAG) and the observing system of IAG, i.e. the Global Geodetic Observing System (GGOS) (see his slide and the full report ). IAG, which is a primarily scientific organization, makes an effort to disseminate information on GEO and GEOSS to its members.

  GGOS represents IAG on the GEO Committees, contributes to several Tasks (also as Task co-leads), and participates in several CoPs. Specifically related to ST-09-02, GGOS has been organizing science-oriented GEO/GGOS workshops, and an examples is the up-coming workshop "Towards future Gravity Satellite Missions" (see the Workshop web page ). GGOS also is leading a International Geoscience Program (IGCP) project that aims to bring in scientific communities in geodesy and hydrology together and into GEO (see the IGCP 565 Project web page ).

• In the absence of a representative of IEEE at that time of the meeting, Hans-Peter Plag briefly summarized the IEEE report (for details see the full report ). IEEE has been active in organizing GEO/GEOSS-focused sessions at major international scientific conferences, facilitating plenary presentations on GEO at these conferences, and organizing scientific GEO Workshops. The compilation of a list of major scientific conferences (Activity 5.1) has been started.

  The first phase of the SaveEarthGame competition (Activity 3.4), i.e. a competition for concept ideas, has led to more than 30 entries, which are currently reviewed. The second phase, which asks for the actual development of the games, is likely to start later in 2009, but specific information on dates and procedure was not available yet.

3 Review of the Task Sheet

Hans-Peter Plag presented the list of anticipated Task outputs for a review. However, the discussion immediately focused on the activities themselves and not the outputs. Since some of the participants had not been involved in the development of the list of activities, these participants raised concerns about the relevance of some activities. It therefore was decided to move on in the agenda and start the review of the activities.

4 Review of Activity 1: Links with major scientific research enterprises

1. As a first step, a high-level list of major scientific research enterprises that would be beneficial for GEOSS but are currently not linked to GEO is to be compiled and available early in 2010. ICSU took the lead on this. Although Gisbert Glaser confirmed that ICSU intends to compile this list, there were considerable reservations with respect to the value of such a list and questions were raised whether this should be done at all. Michael Rast stated that in his opinion, it was wrong to start with such a list and it would be better first to show that GEOSS actually does something. Hans-Peter Plag clarified that Activity 1.1 was only a small part of what the task is doing and there was no prioritizing in the numbering of the Activities.

   Gisbert Glaser asked how the information for this list should be gathered, and there were several suggestions, including the suggestions to ask the Task leads what is missing, or to ask the existing POs. Douglas Cripe reminded that there have been Calls for Participation in GEO. In the end it was concluded that there would be a learning by doing process involved.

   It was asked whether the goal of Activity 1 would be to get more Participating Organizations (POs) into GEO and the concern was voiced that it would be a problem if the POs would outnumber the Member Countries. Douglas Cripe informed that this concern had already been raised at the last Plenary and in the Excom, and the applications of two new organizations to become POS had been put on hold until the criteria for what organizations could become POs were reviewed and decided upon. Hans-Peter Plag found that there was a trade-off between giving POs rights similar to those of the Member Countries and then having to limit the number of POs to keep the majority with the Member countries or to limit the rights of the POs in the GEO Plenary and then being able to have more POs in GEO. Another option would be to invite organizations into GEO as Observers, perhaps as an initial phase. There was considerable discussion about this issue, and it was emphasized that much of the work is done by the POs; that for organizations it is relevant to have the status of a PO; and that it is important that POs are not down-graded to second-class members of GEO. Stuart Marsh identified the need to first clarify what GEO will decide about acceptance criteria for POs and their status, before contacting new organizations in the frame of the Activities. This lead to

   Action Item ST2-KO-1: Douglas Cripe and Hans-Peter Plag will monitor the discussion concerning acceptance criteria for and status of POs and will inform the Task Team when decisions are reached by the GEO Plenary. Responsible: Douglas Cripe, Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2009-12-31.

2. Once the list of major scientific enterprises currently not linked to GEO is available, a prioritization could be done, and a mechanisms to bring these organizations into GEO could be developed. Since the future status of POs in GEO is not clear, there was agreement not to discuss the potential mechanisms any further.
3. The list of Activities includes a dedicate workshops with the goal to bring relevant new scientific organizations into GEO, there was concern that this would only lead to more meetings. Moreover, since Activities 1.1. and 1.2 would have to be progressed first, this activity was not discussed any further.

5 Review of Activity 2: Encourage scientists and technical experts to contribute to GEOSS

1. Getting GEOSS acknowledged among scientists: The list of Task activity identifies a GEOSS citation standard, which would provide the means for visible acknowledgment of scientific contributions to GEOSS whenever GEOSS products or services are used, as a first step towards the end of providing due credits to those scientists who contribute to GEOSS. There was considerable discussion whether a citation standard or citation rules would actually be a motivation for scientist. David Halpern did not support this activity, while several of the participants who are active as scientists emphasized the importance of getting due credit for scientists. It was also suggested that GEOSS should give feedback to those who provide data sets and products about access to these data sets and products, similar to what scientific journals do today with respect to down-loads of papers.

   After the discussion, the following action item emerged:

   Action Item ST2-KO-2: All Task Team members will gather information on approaches to citation rules and credits for acknowledging data established and applied in relevant organizations they are linked to, and they will submit this information to Stuart Marsh for the preparation of a summary report. Responsible: ALL, Deadline: 2009-10-31.

2. Establishing a "GEO label": This activity was strongly criticized by David Halpern, who stated that data sets are normally produced by the space agencies and/or other organizations, and it would be wrong for GEO to put a "GEO label" on these data sets. Hans-Peter Plag made an attempt to clarify that the intend of the "GEO label" was not to indicate "ownership" of the data sets or that GEO paid for the data sets, but rather a quality stamp. He reported that the value of this label as discussed during the Task Meeting in February 2009 in Brussels was to signal that data sets and products with the label had been validated/quality controlled according to a set of well-defined rules, nothing more. Participants at the Brussels meeting believed that such a label would motivate scientists to make their data sets available trough GEO since get the GEO label would carry some prestige. Several participants of the Kickoff meeting did not agree that such a label would be practical since assuring data quality and validity could develop into an enormous task. Some participants were not convinced that GEO label would encourage scientists to contribute data sets while others thought it would be a good way to get individual data sets into the registry. There was the general opinion that is would not be an easy task, and most were not sure what the best process would be. Alternatives discussed were the request that data be vetted by independent sources, or that appropriate POs review data sets. Hans-Peter Plag emphasized that the Task team was not asked to actually carry out this activity but rather to come up with a concept of what would be realistically feasible for GEO. He voice his own opinion that GEO most likely could not do much more than request sufficient information that would document the quality of a given data set. David Halpern pointed out that the space agencies and other organizations have already rules and processes for that in place an there was no need to GEO to duplicate to this. Gisbert Glaser added that also the ICSU World Data Centers had their rules in place. Considering that the FP7 call for 2010 also includes a related project, it was suggested to wait for the EC project. Vojko Bratina remarked that a successful proposal would not be active before mid 2010, and, moreover, this project would only focus on a specific aspect of quality assurance.

   Douglas Cripe informed the meeting that the GEO Work Plan includes a related Task, namely DA-09-01: GEOSS Quality Assurance Strategy . The Task sheet for DA-09-01 was basically empty, but the PoC of this Task was at ESRIN. Therefore, it was agreed that Douglas Cripe should make an attempt to get the PoC to come to the meeting and present the Task scope and status.

   Steffen Fritz suggested that looking at examples could help to develop a concept for quality assurance, and he proposed global land cover data sets as good examples. Concerning the actual process of establishing a GEO label, Hans-Peter Plag remarked that such a quality label could be based on a guarantee or assessment of a relevant PO. Christoph Waldmann consider such a quality label as helpful and remarked that, for example, IPCC had no way of assessing Oxygen measurements, so that an assessment coming from GEO in one form or another would be supportive.

   It was suggested to draft several alternatives in terms of what GEO actually could do without duplicating efforts already underway. It was also suggested that “label” may not be the right word, and the alternative of compliance check was suggested. The joint ADC-STC session in Melbourne was identified as an ideal moment to discuss data quality issues.

   In the end of the long discussion, the following action item emerged:

   Action Item ST2-KO-3: All Task Team members will gather information on best practices in quality assurance and quality assessments for data sets and products made available through relevant organizations they are linked to, for example, the world space agencies (CEOS), ICSU World data centers, global observing systems, etc., and they will submit this information to Hans-Peter Plag for the preparation of a summary report. Responsible: ALL, Deadline: 2009-10-31.

   After the lunch break, Pascal Lecomte, PoC for DA-09-01a reported on this task. He pointed out that for a Quality Assurance (QA) strategy, quality indicators are needed and trustability needs to be established. He reported that a strategy for QA for Earth observations has been developed by CEOS on requested by GEO. A set of documents is available at the web page http://www.qa4eo.org . The underlying principle is simply " You made this measurement, tell me how you did it. " The QA4EO is, however, not a standard, but rather a set of guidelines.

   After the presentation, Hans-Peter Plag concluded that QA4EO would be a good starting point to develop Activity 3.2. He asked the Task Team members to look into the documents available at the QA4EO web page with the goal to identify and additional action that the Task team might have to take.

   David Halpern asked whether QA4EO was accepted by the CEOS Plenary? Pascal Lecomte informed that the last CEOS Plenary endorsed the approach. David Halpern further inquired whether these guidelines are used to inform the newcomers among the space agencies that will fly satellites in the next years? Pascal Lecomte confirmed that there is outreach based on the guidelines to these new actors.

   Based on the information about the Task DA-09-01a, it was suggested that the term "GEO label" would be changed in a "GEO compliance stamp." However, this would significantly narrow down the character of activity to mere quality assurance and eliminate aspects such as relevance for the SBAs and scientific relevance. No decision was taken.

   The following action item was agreed:

   Action Item ST2-KO-4: Hans-Peter Plag and Douglas Cripe will ensure that there is coordination of the Task Activity 2.2 and relevant tasks in the GEO Work Plan, in particular, DA-09-01a (PoC: Pascal Lecomte). Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2009-11-30.

3. The third activity geared towards individual scientists has the goal to motivate scientists to register scientific data sets relevant for GEOSS. After some discussion of how to approach this activity, David Halpern suggested to set up an inventory of those data sets that would be most relevant for each of the nine SBAs but are currently not available. Focus should then be on those that come up for more than one SBAs.

   Douglas Cripe pointed out that there is a related Task in the GEO Work Plan, i.e., DA-09-02a: Data Integration and Analysis Systems. It was agreed that coordination with this task is needed. The related action item is:

   Action Item ST2-KO-5: Hans-Peter Plag and Douglas Cripe will explore potential synergies between Activity 2.3 of ST-09-02 and the GEO Work Plan task DA-09-02a "Data Integration and Analysis Systems" by contacting the PoC Ryosuke Shibasaki, shiba@csis.u-tokyo.ac.jp. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2009-10-31.

6 Review of Activity 3: Outreach to diverse scientific and technological communities in order to make GEOSS more visible and attractive

• Activity 3.2: Support outreach of GEO Principals, Committee members and other delegates to S and T communities by the provision of a slide library (ppt).

  This activity was intended to produce results already in June 2009. There was general agreement that such a library was useful, and Hans-Peter Plag emphasized the need that this activity be under the responsibility of the GEO Secretariat, since the library should be available through the GEO web page. Douglas Cripe agreed that the GEO Secretariat should set up this library. A suggestion was made that access to the slide library would be limited, but this was countered by the argument that access should be free in order to facilitate broad dissemination of information about GEO and GEOSS.

  Russell Lefevre mentioned that IEEE made available online presentations, which show a sequence of slides with spoken explanations - thus they can be shown as full presentation. Hans-Peter Plag added that such slide shows could also be developed into videos. However, all of this would be complementary and should not replace the slide library, which could be used to compile presentations about or touching upon GEO and GEOSS. Russell Lefevre responded that IEEE-TV has actually videos on GEO, but that these are from 2006 and therefore a bit outdated. Hans-Peter Plag suggested that an effort is made to update these videos.

  Action Item ST2-KO-6: Douglas Cripe will work with the GEO Secretariat to get a web-based slide library with high-level slides about GEO and GEOSS started for free down-load by those who would like to compile a presentation including information about GEO or GEOSS. Responsible: Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2009-10-31.

• Activity 3.3: Compile a set of compelling examples showing how GEOSS serves S and T communities in their work.

  David Halpern emphasized the importance of this activity. In his opinion, showing GEOSS at work in particular for Science and Technology communities would be one of the best ways to interest these communities for GEO and GEOSS. There was considerable discussion of how this activity could feed into the 2010 Ministerial Summit.

  Concerning the nine SBAs, it was agreed that for each SBA a person should be responsible to identify candidates for examples. Hans-Peter Plag asked for volunteers, which led to the following Action Items:

  Action Item ST2-KO-7: Russell Lefevre will identify one or two compelling examples in the Water SBA that would show how GEOSS works and supports or benefits from science and technology communities, and he will report these examples to Hans-Peter Plag using the agreed upon template. Responsible: Russell Lefevre, Deadline: 2009-08-31.

  Action Item ST2-KO-8: Hans-Peter Plag will contact Jim Caughey, WMO, and ask him to contribute to the identification of one or two compelling examples for Activity 3.3 in the Weather SBA. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2009-08-06.

  Action Item ST2-KO-9: Erik Buch will ensure that DMI contributes to the identification of one or two compelling examples in the Weather SBA that would show how GEOSS works and supports or benefits from science and technology communities, and that these examples are reported to Hans-Peter Plag using the agreed upon template. Responsible: Erik Buch, Deadline: 2009-08-31.

  Action Item ST2-KO-10: Erik Buch will identify one or two compelling examples in the Climate SBA that would show how GEOSS works and supports or benefits from science and technology communities, and he will report these examples to Hans-Peter Plag using the agreed upon template. Responsible: Erik Buch, Deadline: 2009-08-31.

  Action Item ST2-KO-11: Hans-Peter Plag will contact the leads of the Energy CoP and ask them to contribute to the identification of one or two compelling examples for Activity 3.3 in the Energy SBA. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2009-08-06.

  Action Item ST2-KO-12: Hans-Peter Plag will identify one or two compelling examples in the Disaster SBA that would show how GEOSS works and supports or benefits from science and technology communities, and he will report these examples using the agreed upon template. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2009-08-31.

  Action Item ST2-KO-13: Gisbert Glaser will identify one or two compelling examples in the Biodiversity SBA that would show how GEOSS works and supports or benefits from science and technology communities, and he will report these examples to Hans-Peter Plag using the agreed upon template. Responsible: Gisbert Glaser, Deadline: 2009-08-31.

  Action Item ST2-KO-14: Vojko Bratina will identify one or two compelling examples in the Ecosystems SBA that would show how GEOSS works and supports or benefits from science and technology communities, and he will report these examples to Hans-Peter Plag using the agreed upon template. Responsible: Vojko Bratina, Deadline: 2009-08-31.

  Action Item ST2-KO-15: Steffen Fritz will identify one or two compelling examples in the Agriculture SBA that would show how GEOSS works and supports or benefits from science and technology communities, and he will report these examples to Hans-Peter Plag using the agreed upon template. Responsible: Steffen Fritz, Deadline: 2009-08-31.

  Action Item ST2-KO-16: Hans-Peter Plag will contact colleagues active in GEO-related Air Quality activities and ask them to contribute to the identification of one or two compelling examples for Activity 3.3 in the Health SBA. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2009-08-06.

  After this round, David Halpern suggested that the examples should be reviewed by the STC during the meeting in Melbourne before the examples would be submitted to the GEO Task Force for the Ministerial Summit. This dictated a deadline of August 31, 2009 for the submission of the examples to Hans-Peter Plag, who then would have to compile the examples and submit them to Douglas Cripe by September 7, 2009.

  David Halpern raised the question of how the volunteers would approach the identification of the examples. Russell Lefevre explained that he would look into the IEEE initiative "Water for the World". David Halpern emphasized that a key aspect would be to demonstrate how GEO helps the science and technology communities, and mentioned that GEOBON would be a good example. Erik Buch stated that he would look at projects that are carried out under the umbrella of GEO, while Steffen Fritz intended to identify examples from a project related to agriculture. Hans-Peter Plag explained that the would use the GEO Work Plan and contact the Task Leads of those tasks that potentially could produce such examples. Gisbert Glaser reminded that after the Cape Town Ministerial, a often repeated criticism k was that things would have happened anyway, and many examples were considered as mere "GEO labeling". Therefore, it would be important to demonstrated the added value. Hans-Peter Plag agreed and reiterated the mandatory request to emphasize the added value.

  Stuart Marsh brought in the global DEM as one potential candidate for a good example of the added value of GEO. David Halpern mentioned vegetation data sets. He also suggested that the examples should be related to the issues addressed in the STC Paper and the motivation for the Task.

  Based on these comments, Hans-Peter Plag produced a template for the description of each example. David Halpern asked whether the description of the examples should include a graphic illustrating the example. Gisbert Glaser suggested that this should not be included at this stage and maybe added later. The final template is available as doc .

  There was considerable discussion of how to proceed with respect to the GEO Task Force for the Ministerial Summit. It was agreed that a maximum of nine examples (one for each SBA) should be submitted to the STC with the request that the STC gets these across to the Task Force for Ministerial Summit. The STC should be asked to make a strong point to the Task Force to ensure that at the Ministerial Summit the contribution of science would be emphasize. In particular, David Halpern expressed this point repeatedly.

  The following action item was agreed:

  Action Item ST2-KO-17: Hans-Peter Plag will compile all examples showing how GEOSS works and distribute these to the Task Team for a brief iteration and comments, and he will submit these examples afterwards for a review by the STC during the STC meeting in Melbourne. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2009-09-07.

• Activity 3.4: Showing "GEOSS at Work" through games using GEOSS products.

  This activity is led by IEEE, and includes promotion of young scientist activities through the "Save Earth Game Price" established by IEEE. Russell Lefevre stated that there was no new report others than the report provided in written form.

  David Halpern was negative about the SaveEarthGame being an activity of the task. He did not see how this game was related to science. He considered the game an activity that might fit into the UIC. There was considerable discussion of whether the activity should be kept in the list of Task activities. No consensus was reached.

  Russell Lefevre pointed out that technical experts were needed to advice in the development of the game. Technical experts were needed in each of the nine SBAs. Game developers might have questions like "How accurately can we predict weather?" or "How is the amount of water measured in a lake." These experts would have to answer such questions during the second phase, which will aim at the implementation of the game. It was not fully clear how the experts should be selected and what their specific role would be. This led to the Action Item:

  Action Item ST2-KO-18: Douglas Cripe and Hans-Peter Plag will contact Jay Pearlman to clarify the request for experts in support of the SaveEarthGame and the process of how these experts are expected to be found. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2009-09-07.

7 Review of Activity 4: Specific efforts to contact universities and research laboratories with the goal to involve them in GEOSS activities.

1. Outreach to major university cooperation programs and research network.

   There was considerable discussion of how thios activity should be approached. David Halpern had the opinion that this was not a task of ST-09-02 and that it rather should be done by the POs. However, Hans-Peter Plag analysed that currently contacts are established on an ad hoc and uncoordinated basis. The goal of the activity is to add some coordination to the on-going activities. He also agreed with several participants that a comprehensive coverage would not be possible, and POs and Member Principals should be involved at least in the identification of the main programs.

   Susanna Zerbini pointed out that there are a number of networks, and the European Commission could be asked for a list. She mentioned among others some young scientist-programs, such as ERRASMUS, which could or are funding phd-thesis focussed on GEOSS.

   The International Association of Universities was mentioned, which has annual conferences. It was considered rather important that the Director of the GEO Secretariat would give a presentation there preferably at the conference this year (which will be hosted by Notre-Dame University-Louaize, in Lebanon from November 4 to 6, 2009). This led to the Action Item

   Action Item ST2-KO-19: Douglas Cripe will discuss with the Director of the GEO Secretariat to possibility to have the Director give a presentation at the 2009 Conference of the International Association of Universities (IAU). Responsible: Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2009-08-30.

   Sylvain Joffre presented the European COST Program (see the presentation ). Several COST Actions address scientific activities relevant to GEO. It was commented that this program could be an opportunity to obtain funding for organize science-oriented task activities.

2. Proactive collaboration between GEO Tasks and S and T activities at universities and labs.

   This activity was not discussed in detail since it is planned to start from 2010 onwards.

3. Transition from research to operational.

   Hans-Peter Plag reminded the participants that at the Task meeting in February 2009 in Brussels, it was agreed that a first step would be to screen information (web-based, survey with the Participating Organizations, other means) for candidate research activities that are relevant for a transition. David Halpern identified ARGO as an example of a research instrument that is funded by research agencies. This could be recommended by the STC to the GEO Plenary for a transition to operational. Instead, he criticized, the Task Team is now asked to create an inventory, which would only delay the action by the Plenary. There was considerable discussion how to approach the identification of "research instruments" as candidates for a transition. Several options were proposed. As a result, it was agreed:

   Action Item ST2-KO-20: Steffen Fritz and Stuart Marsh will develop proposals for an approach to identify candidates for activities that should be transitioned from a research stage to a more operational stage and provide these proposals to the task team. Responsible: Steffen Fritz, Stuart Marsh, Deadline: 2009-09-30.

8 Review of Activity 5: Presence of GEO at major symposiums and other meetings on different levels.

1. Plenary presentations on GEO and GEOSS in relevant sessions at major science events.

   IEEE committed to lead this, and Russell Lefevre provided a report on past and planned activities at several conference. David Halpern also reported on talks on GEOSS and science and technology at the International Astronomical Congress (IAC). Several participants mentioned other plenary talks.

   David Halpern requested that the plenary talks would be coordinated with the Co-Chairs of the STC. However, Russell Lefevre considered this as unnecessary. Gisbert Glaser recommended that speakers who give plenary talks on GEO and GEOSS should inform the GEO Secretary about relevant presentations. Hans-Peter Plag suggested that these talks are reported to IEEE and that links to the presentations should be included on the Task web page.

2. Organize specific session on GEOSS-related topics at major scientific meetings.

   Hans-Peter Plag reported that a union session had been proposed for the AGU Fall meeting and distributed the session description (see pdf ). Russell Lefevre mentioned other sessions to be proposed at major scientific meetings, and he reported that IEEE already went to major health conference. Vojko Bratina pointed out that the EC requests the presence at major scientific meetings as part of the funding.

3. Side events at major scientific meetings.

   Hans-Peter Plag pointed out that US-GEO had organized Townhall meetings at AGU Fall meetings, and he emphasized the need to have similar events also outside of Europe and US. Russell Lefevre mentioned side events on disaster management, which will take place at a African GIS symposium in Uganda.

   David Halpern criticized that if there is a meeting, GEO would be there, and GEO was more like a traveling road show. He requested that some constraints would be put on this, and asked to have this coordinated with the CBC.

   Hans-Peter Plag underlined the importance of sessions in major scientific events as an offer to scientists to present their results related to GEOSS or based on GEOSS utilities. He also reminded that it had been discussed that the STC would co-locate some meetings with major conferences and would consider to have part of the STC as an open session. Douglas Cripe stated that normally the STC has three meetings per year, and one of these could be co-located. However, the experience during the ISRSE conference in Stresa, Italy, showed that it was too difficult to organize STC meetings in parallel to scientific meetings. In the end there was no consensus and it was agreed that no decision needed to be made.

4. Prospectus for a series of SBA-specific major conferences to be convened before 2015.

   There was some discussion about the idea of having a prospectus, and different opinions about the meaning of a prospectus were voiced. The discussion made clear that the prospectus question was not well defined and it was not clear what was required. Gisbert Glaser had the opinion that the activity was not needed, and it seemed that there was a general consensus that the prospectus was not needed.

   However, Stuart Marsh stated that some kind of plan should be developed. It could be that there is a gap in GEO with respect to a process like the one used by IGOS-P, and that a plan for conferences could help to identify more clearly the gap and close it. Therefore, he volunteered to work the question of the need for a scientific core (like IGOS) and Science and Technology issues not being addressed through GEO into his presentation at the GEO/IGOS Symposium:

   Action Item ST2-KO-21: Stuart Marsh will ensure that the question of a series of GEO/STC conferences focused on scientific issues is considered at the GEO/IGOS-P Symposium in November as a possible way of progressing the IGOS-P approach in the frame of GEO. Responsible: Stuart Marsh, Deadline: 2009-11-30.

9 Review of the science contents of the GEO Work Plan.

Hans-Peter Plag pointed out that there is considerable overlap with the activities of ST-09-01 and ST-09-02, and he requested that both tasks should be involved in the designing of the review process. As a result, the following Action Item was agreed:

Action Item ST2-KO-22: Douglas Cripe will send the draft ToR for the Science review of the GEO Work Plan to the Task team members for comments. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2009-08-29.

10 Input to the ST-09-01 Task Team meeting

11 Any other business

12 Date and time of next Task Meeting

13 Summary of Action Items

Action Item ST2-KO-1: Douglas Cripe and Hans-Peter Plag will monitor the discussion concerning acceptance criteria for and status of POs and will inform the Task Team when decisions are reached by the GEO Plenary. Responsible: Douglas Cripe, Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2009-12-31.

Action Item ST2-KO-2: All Task Team members will gather information on approaches to citation rules and credits for acknowledging data established and applied in relevant organizations they are linked to, and they will submit this information to Stuart Marsh for the preparation of a summary report. Responsible: ALL, Deadline: 2009-10-31.

Action Item ST2-KO-3: All Task Team members will gather information on best practices in quality assurance and quality assessments for data sets and products made available through relevant organizations they are linked to, for example, the world space agencies (CEOS), ICSU World data centers, global observing systems, etc., and they will submit this information to Hans-Peter Plag for the preparation of a summary report. Responsible: ALL, Deadline: 2009-10-31.

Action Item ST2-KO-4: Hans-Peter Plag and Douglas Cripe will ensure that there is coordination of the Task Activity 2.2 and relevant tasks in the GEO Work Plan, in particular, DA-09-01a (PoC: Pascal Lecomte). Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2009-11-30.

Action Item ST2-KO-5: Hans-Peter Plag and Douglas Cripe will explore potential synergies between Activity 2.3 of ST-09-02 and the GEO Work Plan task DA-09-02a "Data Integration and Analysis Systems" by contacting the PoC Ryosuke Shibasaki, shiba@csis.u-tokyo.ac.jp. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2009-10-31.

Action Item ST2-KO-6: Douglas Cripe will work with the GEO Secretariat to get a web-based slide library with high-level slides about GEO and GEOSS started for free down-load by those who would like to compile a presentation including information about GEO or GEOSS. Responsible: Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2009-10-31.

Action Item ST2-KO-7: Russell Lefevre will identify one or two compelling examples in the Water SBA that would show how GEOSS works and supports or benefits from science and technology communities, and he will report these examples to Hans-Peter Plag using the agreed upon template. Responsible: Russell Lefevre, Deadline: 2009-08-31.

Action Item ST2-KO-8: Hans-Peter Plag will contact Jim Caughey, WMO, and ask him to contribute to the identification of one or two compelling examples for Activity 3.3 in the Weather SBA. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2009-08-06.

Action Item ST2-KO-9: Erik Buch will ensure that DMI contributes to the identification of one or two compelling examples in the Weather SBA that would show how GEOSS works and supports or benefits from science and technology communities, and that these examples are reported to Hans-Peter Plag using the agreed upon template. Responsible: Erik Buch, Deadline: 2009-08-31.

Action Item ST2-KO-10: Erik Buch will identify one or two compelling examples in the Climate SBA that would show how GEOSS works and supports or benefits from science and technology communities, and he will report these examples to Hans-Peter Plag using the agreed upon template. Responsible: Erik Buch, Deadline: 2009-08-31.

Action Item ST2-KO-11: Hans-Peter Plag will contact the leads of the Energy CoP and ask them to contribute to the identification of one or two compelling examples for Activity 3.3 in the Energy SBA. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2009-08-06.

Action Item ST2-KO-12: Hans-Peter Plag will identify one or two compelling examples in the Disaster SBA that would show how GEOSS works and supports or benefits from science and technology communities, and he will report these examples using the agreed upon template. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2009-08-31.

Action Item ST2-KO-13: Gisbert Glaser will identify one or two compelling examples in the Biodiversity SBA that would show how GEOSS works and supports or benefits from science and technology communities, and he will report these examples to Hans-Peter Plag using the agreed upon template. Responsible: Gisbert Glaser, Deadline: 2009-08-31.

Action Item ST2-KO-14: Vojko Bratina will identify one or two compelling examples in the Ecosystems SBA that would show how GEOSS works and supports or benefits from science and technology communities, and he will report these examples to Hans-Peter Plag using the agreed upon template. Responsible: Vojko Bratina, Deadline: 2009-08-31.

Action Item ST2-KO-15: Steffen Fritz will identify one or two compelling examples in the Agriculture SBA that would show how GEOSS works and supports or benefits from science and technology communities, and he will report these examples to Hans-Peter Plag using the agreed upon template. Responsible: Steffen Fritz, Deadline: 2009-08-31.

Action Item ST2-KO-16: Hans-Peter Plag will contact colleagues active in GEO-related Air Quality activities and ask them to contribute to the identification of one or two compelling examples for Activity 3.3 in the Health SBA. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2009-08-06.

Action Item ST2-KO-17: Hans-Peter Plag will compile all examples showing how GEOSS works and distribute these to the Task Team for a brief iteration and comments, and he will submit these examples afterwards for a review by the STC during the STC meeting in Melbourne. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2009-09-07.

Action Item ST2-KO-18: Douglas Cripe and Hans-Peter Plag will contact Jay Pearlman to clarify the request for experts in support of the SaveEarthGame and the process of how these experts are expected to be found. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2009-09-07.

Action Item ST2-KO-19: Douglas Cripe will discuss with the Director of the GEO Secretariat to possibility to have the Director give a presentation at the 2009 Conference of the International Association of Universities (IAU). Responsible: Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2009-08-30.

Action Item ST2-KO-20: Steffen Fritz and Stuart Marsh will develop proposals for an approach to identify candidates for activities that should be transitioned from a research stage to a more operational stage and provide these proposals to the task team. Responsible: Steffen Fritz, Stuart Marsh, Deadline: 2009-09-30.

Action Item ST2-KO-21: Stuart Marsh will ensure that the question of a series of GEO/STC conferences focused on scientific issues is considered at the GEO/IGOS-P Symposium in November as a possible way of progressing the IGOS-P approach in the frame of GEO. Responsible: Stuart Marsh, Deadline: 2009-11-30.

Action Item ST2-KO-22: Douglas Cripe will send the draft ToR for the Science review of the GEO Work Plan to the Task team members for comments. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2009-08-29.

Minutes prepared by Hans-Peter Plag

In case of problems, mail to Web Administrator.