HDF, EOSDIS, NASA ESE Data Standards

NATIONAL AERONAUTICSAND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

HDF, EOSDIS, NASA ESE Data Standards

Richard Ullman


Agenda

• ESDIS Status wrt HDF• EOSDIS (American Customer Satisfaction Index)• NASA Earth Science Standards Endorsement Process


ESDIS Status

• Launch of Aura (July 25) marks end of development phase of the EOSDIS Core System (ECS).

• System is now in maintenance. Capability refinements are under the “Synergy” program.– Data enters are now running “Synergy 3” release. Will be transitioning

to “Synergy 4” over the next six months.

• Maintenance of HDF for EOS includes two components– Support of NCSA’s HDF group through a cooperative agreement.

– Support of HDF-EOS through ECS maintenance contract

• Other ESDIS project sponsored HDF-related work will be phased out near the end of calendar year 2004.– http://hdfeos.gsfc.nasa.gov website updates

– “SESDA” hdf data usability task

– Coordination, outreach and test bed development for HDF integration through CEOS, OGC, ISO organizations.


HDF-EOS

• A profile, convention, convenience API, etc for NASA’s Earth Observation System standard data products.– Defines structures for Point, Swath, Grid (Atmospheric Profile, Zonal

Table)

– Defines specific location for product metadata • ODL encoded metadata compliant with FGDC content standards.

• Maintained by a by L3-Communications under subcontract to Raytheon’s ECS Maintenance and Development contract.

• Next release expected Dec. 2004– HDF5-1.6.3

– SZIP 1.2

– New inquiry functions

– CEA (Cylindrical Equal Area grid projection

– Improved performance in read/write functions


HDF in NASA Earth Remote Sensing

• HDF-EOS is format for EOS Standard Products– Landsat 7 (ETM+)– Terra (CERES, MISR, MODIS, ASTER, MOPITT)– Meteor-3M (SAGE III)– Aqua (AIRS, AMSU-A, AMSR-E, CERES, MODIS)– Aura(MLS, TES, HIRDLS, OMI

• HDF is used by other EOS missions– OrbView 2 (SeaWIFS)– TRMM (CERES, VIRS, TMI, PR)– Quickscat (SeaWinds)– EO-1 (Hyperion, ALI)– ICESat (GLAS)– Calypso

• Over 3 petabytes of EOSDIS archived data


HDF-EOS Lessons

• Definition of a set of data structures as a profile is not sufficient to guarantee interoperability.– Also need definition of content, especially metadata - this is

increasingly difficult the wider the disciplines covered.– See AURA DSWG standards and NetCDF CF as examples.– Also need conformance measures - no spec is so clear that it

cannot be misinterpreted.

• Even during life of mission, there must be allowance for technology refresh.– Technology advances affect user expectations.– Well understood concept for hardware - traditionally less

recognized for science software and data products.– See OAIS


Discussion topics today

• Ask the experts– A growing number of software products depend upon the HDF

libraries. Are there suggestions for how to better coordinate HDF library releases.

– Questions from participants.

• HDF-GEO?– Last workshop there was strong opinion expressed that there

should be some kind of bridge among HDF geographic and geophysical profiles.

• Can we develop a better sense of what such and “HDF-GEO” might be?

• Is this the list? HDF-EOS, NetCDF API, HDF-NPOESS

• What are reasonable expectations for this effort?


From ESDSWG meeting last week: Why Use a Standard?

• Good documentation• Other projects have reviewed it and found it useful• Reusable software sometimes available• Potential users can see that standard and software

works • Not management pressure or peer pressure – just more

practical


2004 EOSDIS Satisfaction Survey


2004 EOSDIS Satisfaction Survey

• A measure of customer satisfaction – ESISS and ESSAAC have recommended that NASA focus on

measuring the “impact” of our systems and services rather than just the “output”

• In 2004, NASA used a comprehensive survey to determine the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) for EOSDIS products and services.– ACSI provides a normalized measure of customer satisfaction

that allows benchmarking against similar companies and industries.

• 2004 survey results show that customer satisfaction with EOSDIS compares very favorably with both industry and other government agencies.


Snapshot of the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)

• The # 1 national indicator of customer satisfaction today• Compiled by the National Quality Research Institute at

the University of Michigan using methodology licensed from the Claes Fornell International (CFI) Group

• Measures 40 industries and 200 organizations covering 75% of the U.S. Economy– Over 70 U.S. Federal Government agencies have used ACSI to

measure more than 120 programs/services

• CFI’s Advanced methodology quantifiably measures and links satisfaction levels to performance and prioritizes actions for improvement


Survey Background

• EOSDIS survey was performed by CFI Group through a contract with the Federal Consulting Group (Department of Treasury).

• Survey questions developed by the DAAC User Services Working Group were tailored to fit the CFI methodology

• ESDIS provided the CFI Group with 33,251 email addresses from users who had used NASA/EOSDIS products – CFI sent invitations to participate in an online survey to 9,999

randomly selected users• 1,056 responses were completed

• 1,016 surveys were used in the analysis (250 responses were needed for statistically meaningful response).


75*

NASA EOSDIS Aggregate Segment

EOSDIS Results

• The Customer Satisfaction Index for NASA EOSDIS is…

• The Customer Satisfaction Index score is derived from customer responses to three questions in the survey:

– How satisfied are you overall with the products and services provided by the Data Center (79)?

– To what extent have the data, products and services provided by the Data Center fallen short of or exceeded your expectations (73)?

– How well does the Data Center compare with an ideal provider of scientific data, products and services (71)?

• This score is four points higher than the 2003 American Customer Satisfaction Index for the Federal Government overall (71).

* The confidence interval for ACSI is +/-1.1 for the aggregate at the 95% confidence level.


Score ComparisonCurrent Location

74

67

34%

76

82

83

73

71

69

31%

88

85

72

69

ACSI

Customer Support

Delivery

Product Selectionand Order

Product Search

Product Quality

Complaints

USA (n=478)Outsidethe USA (n=577)


Customer Support - Score 84, Impact: 1.0

84

83

82

84

85

85

87

Customer Support

Professionalism

Technical knowledge

Accuracy of information provided

Helpfulness in selecting/finding data orproducts

Helpfulness in correcting a problem

Timeliness of response

CFI considers EOSDIS to be “World Class” in the area of customer support.


Product Quality - Score 68, Impact: 0.9

68

69

67

68

Product Quality

Ease of using thedata product in the

delivered format

Clarity of dataproduct

documentation

Thoroughness ofdata product

documentation

In what format were data or products provided?

HDF-EOS 49%

HDF 39%

NetCDF 5%

Binary 14%

ASCII 12%

GeoTIFF 19%

Other 7%

Was documentation…

Delivered with the data 44%

Pointed to (on a website) 41%

Not available 15%


Analysis of Results

• Product quality is the lowest scoring component (68), and has a relatively high impact (0.9).– All attributes in this area received similar ratings

• At 84 customer support scores well, and is also high impact (1.0).– There is a significant difference in customer support ratings given by

customers within the U.S. (88) compared to those outside the U.S. (82).

• The components product search, product selection and order are highly correlated.

• Recent customers are more satisfied, but are also reporting more problems.

• Percentage of customer complaints is fairly high (32%) when compared to the federal government overall (12%).– Customers may not be calling to complain about a problem, but rather to

seek assistance in solving the problem.– 90% of respondents who answered the customer complaint questions

gave user services’ complaint handling a rating of “6” or above.


CFI’s Recommendations for Improving ACSI

• Focus on Product Quality:– Review the type of data product documentation available with

each product. Work to improve the clarity and thoroughness of the documentation.

– Assess the various data formats and work to improve the usability of each.

– Offer a wider variety of data formats.

• Review the Product Search and Product Selection and Order scores to determine how best to help customers find the data they need:– Due to high correlation, improvements in one area will likely

result in improvements in the other.– Simplify the search process; make data products more apparent.– Improve data product descriptions.


Product Format Ease of Use Comparison

HDF-EOS HDF

Geo-TIFF Binary ASCII

Valid Responses 270 190 61 53 44

Mean Valid Score 6.76 7.20 7.48 7.02 7.30

Median Valid Score 7 8 8 7 8

Standard Deviation 2.47 2.34 2.03 2.76 2.54

95% Confidence Interval 0.29 0.33 0.51 0.74 0.75

% of Users Assigning 8 or More 46.7% 52.6% 55.8% 49.0% 63.7%

The relatively low scoring of HDF-EOS was supported by users’ free text comments.


NASA’s Earth Science Data SystemsStandards Process


Insights

• Interoperability does not require homogeneous systems, but rather coordination at the interfaces.

• Management can judge success based upon program goals rather than dictate solutions. – example: degree of interoperability rather than use of particular

data format.

• Communities of practice have solutions.• Published practices that demonstrate benefit can grow

…– successful practice in specific community– broader community adoption– community-recognized “standards”


The ESDSWG Standards Process

• Modeled on Internet Engineering Task Force “RFC” process and tailored to meet NASA’s circumstances. The standards process provides:– Registers community practice for NASA

• NASA Earth science data management can rely on standards to achieve highest priority interoperability

– Encourages consensus within communities• Science investigators are assured that standards contribute to

science success in their discipline.

– Grows use of common practices among related activities• Discipline communities benefit from the expertise gained by others

– Documents data systems practices for use by external communities.

• Lowers barriers to entry and use of NASA data.


Standards Process Group Strategy

• Adopt standards at the interfaces, appropriate to given science and drawn from successful practice.– Find specifications with a potentially wide appeal

– Draw attention to a much broader audience

– Monitor use, promote what works well

– Result : Accelerate the evolution and adoption

• Preferred source of RFC is community nomination.• Possible to direct creation of RFC in response to identified needs.

• Consequence of endorsement– Future NASA data systems component proposals will be judged partly

on how well they interoperate using community-identified practices or else justify why departure from community has greater benefit.


Three Step Standards Process

Initial ScreeningInitial review of the RFCProvide RFC submission support Form TWG; set schedule

Initial ScreeningInitial review of the RFCProvide RFC submission support Form TWG; set schedule

Review of ImplementationCommunity review and inputEvaluation and recommendation

Review of ImplementationCommunity review and inputEvaluation and recommendation

Review of OperationCommunity review and inputEvaluation and recommendation

Review of OperationCommunity review and inputEvaluation and recommendation

Proposed STD

Community Core

Draft STD

Community Core

STD

Community Core

RFC

Community Core


SPG Review

SPG Review andRecommendation

RecommendationRecommendation

SPG SPG

Evaluate Implementations and

Community Response

Evaluate Implementations and

Community Response

TWGTWGEvaluate Implementation

s

Evaluate Implementation

s

Stakeholders

Stakeholders


What’s in the works

• DAP 2 standard – used by many in the oceanographic community – basis for the DODS and OpenDAP servers. -- submitted in June as a “Community Standard”– “Request For Comments” on implementation experience

distributed October 1, comments due November 12.

• Precipitation Community – discussing potential science content standards being used to define level 2 & level 3 data– Self identified group of precipitation scientists have identified

need and are proposing a draft. Are discussing at IPWG in Monterey.

– “The community is establishing de facto standards in this area and that is the best way to deal with this.”

• FGDC Vegetation Index standard – discussing with potential community members


Ideas from the last ES-DSWG

• GCMD DIF• GeoTIFF• NetCDF CF• OGC suite


Community Leadership

• Strong proposals will have:– Leadership to support and use standard– Potential for impact– Potential for approval– Simple standard is better– Potential for spillover to other communities

• Successful RFCs will have:– At least two implementers– Demonstrated operational benefit– Leadership in generating the RFC– Community willing/able to review


SPG Contacts

• Earth Science Data Systems Standards Process Group– http://spg.gsfc.nasa.gov/spg

• Chairs SPG– Richard Ullman [email protected]– Ming-Hsiang Tsou [email protected]

HDF, EOSDIS, NASA ESE Data Standards

Documents

Transcript of HDF, EOSDIS, NASA ESE Data Standards