Meeting Agenda
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes of previous mtg
4. IEEE Patent Policy
5. Discussion of Draft Standard
6. Other Business
7. Future Meetings
8. Adjourn
Minutes of SAR Metadata Std Working Group Meeting
June 18, 2020
1. Call to order
attendees:
Leland Pierce
Wade Schwartzkopf
Marc Trachy
Craig Stringham
Chuck Heazel
Vanessa Lalitte
we have a quorum
===================================
2. Approval of agenda
===================================
Marc moved, Wade seconded, no discussion, no opposition
approved.
===================================
3. Approval of minutes of previous meeting
===================================
Marc moved, Wade seconded, no discussion, no opposition
approved.
===================================
4. IEEE Patent and Copyright Policy
===================================
1. slides 1-4 were shown and discussed by the chair
2. Chair provided an opportunity for participants to identify patent
claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent
claim(s)/patent application claim(s) of which the participant is
personally aware and that may be essential for the use of that
standard.
3. responses:
Wade brought up the problem that this std is borrowing heavily from the existing NGA SICD std, and that NGA is expecting to be able to get electronic copies of the std and freely distribute them to all NGA employees.
Vanessa said this needs to be stated in the contract, and IEEE would need to agree to it.
Wade also mentioned he’d like to have the std be free to all.
Vanessa said that there was a mechanism for this, called the “IEEE-get program”.
There is a fee of approx $50,000.
Chuck said he thought that would be do-able.
Needs further investigation.
===================================
5. Discussion of current draft standard
===================================
Moved on to a discussion of making SICD “ISO-compatible”.
Chuck Heazel spoke about how he suggested making this std a
“dictionary”, with correspondence between ISO-term and ours.
This would be the easiest way to accomplish it.
Followed by an additional document that explained how to map SICD
concepts to ISO concepts.
He also suggested producing an ontology annex as an extension to the W3C
Semantic Sensor Network ontology.
After some discussion, it was decided that Chuck would come up with a
preliminary version of doing this for the “Discovery” metadata part.
And we would discuss this again in 2 weeks.
There was a question about whether the ISO discovery was actually used by anybody.
Chuck answered that most space agencies, and other standards bodies required it and used it in their tools. So, that made it clear that being compatible would make sense for this std.
We also discussed the “rest” of the metadata, giving it the term
“exploitation metadata”, and that ISO stds did not cover the majority
of what SICD included, and so ISO-compatibility was impossible.
Instead, we thought it would make sense to define our metadata in a
way that was ISO-like, using ISO concepts and data-types where
reasonable.
Doing this is a formidable task, one that we’ll come back to next
time.
Chuck brought up that he liked the ISO “lineage” metadata.
The group agreed that it could be used for specifying who peocessed
the data, when, and with what code, but that using the current
exploitation metadata made more sense than trying to map it to the
processing steps.
Grids vs. Polynomials was brought up again, and Wade said he would
work on writing something about his point of view before next time, so
that we could try to finalize this.
Marc brought up the idea that some of the current SICD items could be
simplified, such as requiring 2 1-way antenna patterns, rather than also a
2-way pattern.
He volunteered to write down his thoughts before next time.
Marc also brought up the SICD error model.
Someone suggested trying to use the ISO error model (19157), but Chuck
said he thought that the ISO model was not detailed enough nor
appropriate for SAR data, having originally been developed for cartographic
error analysis.
Marc also brought up the idea that for single-look SAR data the
georeferencing information, used for discovery, could be very wrong, up
to many Km. Was there a way to fix this?
Since it would require using a DEM, then which DEM should be used?
In general, it was felt that at the time of discovery, the users were
used to the georeferencing being poor, so this wasn’t a critical
issue.
It is, however, different than for the optical sensors, which look nearly
straight down, and so have less georeferencing error.
This issue needs further discussion.
===================================
6. Other business?
===================================
none
===================================
7. Next meeting
===================================
the group wanted to have the next meeting in 2 weeks, at 11am.
Our next meeting will be on :
Thursday, July 2, 11AM Eastern time
===================================
8. Adjourn
===================================
Marc motioned, Wade seconded. no opposition. passed