Re: Admin: policy for reporting high resolution ground-based imagery of Earth satellites

From: Bradley Allen (bradley.p.allen@gmail.com)
Date: Wed May 11 2011 - 19:42:39 UTC

  • Next message: Peter Wakelin: "SATOBS 2011 May 12"

    Ted- As a meta-comment/question on this topic: would it be appropriate
    in this context to discuss how the community might take advantage of
    Web data standards in the definition of reporting formats?
    
    Understanding that this is a small, skilled set of amateurs that have
    gotten tremendous mileage over decades out of the formats that exist,
    I often wonder if we could do better in supporting data analysis and
    application development through the adoption of formats unconstrained
    by the legacy of punch cards.
    
    In my role at a large scientific publisher, I am leading an effort to
    exploit linked data standards for scientific and medical information.
    This work has underscored for me the advantages of such standards in
    making it easy for developers to consume, mash up and build
    applications to top of that data. I'd welcome the opportunity either
    on-list or off to discuss with anyone interested whether there is any
    appetite for doing something in this vein for satellite observation
    data. - regards, BPA
    
    Bradley P. Allen
    http://bradleypallen.org
    
    
    
    On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Ted Molczan <ssl3molcz@rogers.com> wrote:
    > Last August, I initiated a discussion regarding policy options for reporting high resolution ground-based imagery of
    > Earth satellites to SeeSat-L:
    >
    > http://satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2010/0134.html
    >
    > Of the few subscribers who responded, a small majority favoured Option 2, with varying degrees of support for the
    > requirement that raw frames be made available. Ralf Vandebergh - the only hi-res imager who responded - was among those
    > who argued for more or less the status quo.
    >
    > The ongoing disagreement between Thierry Legault and Ralf Vandebergh reinforces my belief that a fairly rigorous
    > reporting standard would be beneficial. In the above-linked message, I made some suggestions for reporting which I would
    > like to see as the starting point of discussion, involving all who are interested in advancing the state of the art.
    >
    > I would especially like for the hi-res imagers to work together to develop a reporting standard, whether they discuss it
    > here, or elsewhere. Perhaps they could jointly seek guidance from one or more of the professionals in the field.
    >
    > Ted Molczan
    > Admin
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > Seesat-l mailing list
    > http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l
    >
    _______________________________________________
    Seesat-l mailing list
    http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 11 2011 - 19:43:56 UTC