1. Call to Order
\n2. Approval of Agenda
\n3. Approval of Minutes of previous mtg
\n4. IEEE Patent Policy
\n5. Discussion of Draft Standard
\n6. Other Business
\n7. Future Meetings
\n8. Adjourn<\/p>\n
Minutes of SAR Metadata Std Working Group Meeting
\nAugust 27, 2020<\/p>\n
1. Call to order
\nattendees:
\nLeland Pierce
\nWade Schwartzkopf
\nMarc Trachy
\nChuck Heazel
\nMike Stewart
\nCraig Stringham
\nVanessa Lalitte<\/p>\n
we have a quorum<\/p>\n
===================================
\n2. Approval of agenda
\n===================================
\nMarc moved, Mike seconded, no discussion, no opposition
\napproved.<\/p>\n
===================================
\n3. Approval of minutes of previous meeting
\n===================================
\nMarc moved, Mike seconded, no discussion, no opposition
\napproved.<\/p>\n
===================================
\n4. IEEE Patent and Copyright Policy
\n===================================
\n1. slides 1-4 were shown and discussed by the chair
\n2. Chair provided an opportunity for participants to identify patent
\nclaim(s)\/patent application claim(s) and\/or the holder of patent
\nclaim(s)\/patent application claim(s) of which the participant is
\npersonally aware and that may be essential for the use of that
\nstandard.<\/p>\n
===================================
\n5. Discussion of current draft standard
\n===================================<\/p>\n
Continued discussion on Marc Trachy’s document giving ideas for changes to make
\nin SICD for this standard.<\/p>\n
21. ErrorStats
\n currently ecf posn uncertainty not required, but offset reqd for
\n scp in image domain.
\n extend to radiometric and polarization params
\n need a confidence measure: a string<\/p>\n
22. beamcomp
\n specify how applied: for example avg or specific beam value<\/p>\n
PFA:
\n23. move under ImageFormation… no argument
\n24. Krg, etc
\n originally interpolated spatial freq extents
\n not useful to anybody.
\n no argument against removal
\n25. STdeskew
\n currently: a flag if applied or not, plus a polynomial
\n can get from deltaKCOA
\n if a deskew has been applied that is not STdeskew, what then?<\/p>\n
RMA\/INCA
\n26. move under ImageFormation… no argument
\n27. R_CA_SCP
\n redundant, potentially incorrect
\n error has been noted to be 0.5m for some formats that also provide
\n tie points.
\n28. FreqZero
\n not needed if remove dopcentroidpoly
\n29. dopCentroifPoly
\n redundant
\n range rate more relevant.
\n both can be calculated from geometry<\/p>\n
31. decided to pick beta-0 as the provided data, with equations in
\n spec giving eqns to convert to others:
\n rcs, sigma0, gamma0<\/p>\n
bistatics:
\n some discussion as to whether to make this part of the std or just
\n stick to monostatic. no decision.
\n issue is that one needs to know it’s bistatic to process the metadata
\n correctly.
\n instead: metadata should make it clear
\n(32-35)
\n basically require that illuminator and receiver have names
\n that way if the same, know its monostatic.
\n make tx and rcv apc polynomials required and dump arp-poly since its
\n not precise enough.
\n probably need to add more params for this, including:
\n error-stats,
\n redefine scpcoa
\n needs further discussion<\/p>\n
philosophical issues:
\n36. do we require the producer to make guesses when info is less than
\nperfect? Can we devise a reasonable set of possibilities for how the
\nguess was arrived at?
\n need to do for params related to:
\n antenna
\n cal
\n errors<\/p>\n
some of the things we are considering making required are only
\nrequired for specific applications. keep optional?
\nan example: antenna pattern:
\n if only have 3db beamwidth, can provide a sampled pattern that
\n shows this, sampled sparsely.
\n or, knowing the kind of antenna, could provide a modeled version if
\n the pattern has not been measured
\n or, have in-lab measured but not attached to platform
\n or, have in-lab measured and attached to platform
\n or, have a field-campaign that measured the pattern during the
\n mission: once or many times.
\n etc.<\/p>\n
This can potentially be an arbitrary process that was used to create
\nthe “estimate”. so how can we capture that?<\/p>\n
for cal, for example, lets say there is an AGC somewhere, and it is
\nnot captured in the metadata, so there is no way to compare numbers
\nbetween different datatakes, only relative (agc is constant for a
\ndatatake). not likely an issue for modern sensors, but for conversion
\nof old data to this std.<\/p>\n
37. segmentList depends on grid.
\n since the segmentList is related to data that is not part of this
\n file, it seems that the data catalog is the best place to find
\n related data instead of putting it here.
\n agreement to remove.<\/p>\n
38. RadarCollection:
\n some params are related to the collection and NOT this specific
\n data-file.
\n such as collectDuration as opposed to processedDuration
\n general agreement that this should be removed.
\n need a more specific suggestion that goes into each param in
\n RadarCollection.<\/p>\n
39,40,41:
\n require 2 1-way patterns and dump the 2-way pattern
\n this simplifies code that is using this
\n 2 1-ways is also more useful for some applications where only one
\n of the patterns is relevant.
\n Mike Stewart brouhgt up a particular example with cosmoskymed
\n where only the 2-way is provided, and the pattern is quite messy
\n due to the multiplication of 2 different 1-way patterns.
\n need to explain why 2 1-way is better\/required in the spec.<\/p>\n
42. matchinginfo:
\n agreed to remove<\/p>\n
Atmosphere:
\n43-45. add tropo\/iono corrections
\n note relevant for older, low-res systems,
\n but most new systems are doing this, and users need to know what
\n they did so they can un-do\/re-do as needed.
\n needs further effort<\/p>\n
===================================
\n6. Other business?
\n===================================<\/p>\n
none<\/p>\n
===================================
\n7. Next meeting
\n===================================
\nthe group wanted to have the next meeting in 2 weeks, at 11am.
\nOur next meeting will be on :
\nThursday, Sept 10, 11AM Eastern time<\/p>\n
===================================
\n8. Adjourn
\n===================================
\nMarc motioned, Mike seconded. no opposition. passed<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 August 27, 2020 1. Call to order attendees: Leland Pierce Wade Schwartzkopf Marc […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":87,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-470","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sagroups.ieee.org\/sar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/470","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sagroups.ieee.org\/sar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sagroups.ieee.org\/sar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sagroups.ieee.org\/sar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/87"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sagroups.ieee.org\/sar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=470"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sagroups.ieee.org\/sar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/470\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sagroups.ieee.org\/sar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=470"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sagroups.ieee.org\/sar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=470"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sagroups.ieee.org\/sar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=470"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}