2022-12-08 Working Meeting

Meeting Notes from: December 8, 2022

Teams Link No dial in number yet, sorry!

Attendees

Jay Laura
Brent Archinal
Laz Kestay
Marc Hunter
Julie Stopar
Ross Beyer
Noah Petro

Agenda

LPSD Abstract
LEAG Meeting (Executive Group)
Lunar SDI Standards

Notes

LPSC Abstract
- Jay working on it. Will be Europa / Lunar.
LEAG Meeting (Executive Group)
- Other folks that want to dial in. It’s 2PM on the 12th.
- I’ll ask again about you all dialing in.
- Take a look at the findings that they issues a few days ago. Specifically, special action team, something between MAPSIT and LEAG.
  - See the LEAG findings here, particularly finding 6.
Lunar SDI Standards:
- Data interoperability and (???) should make heavy use of hyperlinks.
  - Will add references.
  - Brent will get some additional links / references as well.
- Data interoperability: Longitude domain. GISystems want -180 to 180. Compelling reasons to force 0-360?
  - Another GISer applauded. This avoid problems. What are the reasons not to do this?
  - Ross: It is hard to get away from being bi-lingual.
  - Historically, this has been 0-360. Brent, doesn’t see these going away. If we want to recommend that one that is absolutely fine. Why doesn’t the software accomodate 0-360?
  - Where are the data creators working?
    - Ross: Working in 0-360
    - Large Mare work: 0-360 is a pain
      - Why? It’s hard to make a large mare mosaic when 330 - 90. Data also splits.
      - Raster is easier / vector is worse.
    - Recent versions of desktop GISs are not an issue.
  - LRO standard is 0-360.
    - Difference between storage standard and display standard.
    - Propagate the standard.
    - It is easy to omit the negative.
    - Fear of mistakes is not a great rationale - but it is definitely a data point.
  - Motion: Adopt 0 to 360 for data storage. Laz seconded.
    - Julie, no perfect solution.
- Data interoperability -> Map Projections: ‘centered on an image’ - what does that mean? Poor language.
  - Julie - will feel foreign to have data in non-equirectangular or orthographic projections.
  - Brent - storage vs. display. Lunar Geodesy Cartography working group. Use Equirectangular, except where you use polar stereographic. For display, you need to do your thing.
  - Julie: What is the goal for data interoperability -
    - User: Just visualize, ad discovery, and interoperability with well calibrated (photometric, radiometric, geometric)
    - Producer: Make data.
  - That rationale is not clear for the map projections. When we get to the local stuff, the perspective is going to be different than at smaller scales.
  - What context can be added to the standards to provide a framework for making these decisions?
  - Separate discussion for what projections for what processes / analyses?
    - Can make general recommendations, but local stuff is wide open.
- Has Artemis discussed? Engineers want a local system?
- Remove the bullets about specific projections. Everything goverened inside the Lunar SDI will be equirectangular. Caveats are confusing.
- In another section, we can provide local scale ideas and support.
- Cartographic Standards - Styled Layer Descriptor for vector symbols in GeoPackage format
  - These are really hard, especially when beyond a color / line style. SLD is an OGC standard for cartographic representations. Works great with GIS data in a GeoPackage. This is not tied to an ArcGIS project. This decouples application specific data without losing the value of the symbology. This highlights a gap where there is not great support for translation of SLDs.
- Metadata Standards: metadata standards - support of FGDC or ISO, recommending the transition to ISO (reduces friction with accuracy descriptions). Also, should we address unique resource identifiers for data, people, organizations, controlled vocabularies, etc.?
  - Use a standard. Gov is moving towards ISO. (SPD-41a talks about the need to index metadata.)
  - Stuff is available in Dublin Core, etc.
  - Suggest that folks conform to ISO, be happy with others.
- Future discussion:
  - Recommendations on unique identifiers. How are they used, where will they be used, etc?
- Brent: Generic improvements. (Jay will integrate.)
  - Not sure that the headings make sense. Some things seem like cartographic standards. How are the headings organized? Should these change? What is missing?
    - Headings are not absolute. Re-organization is great.
    - There should be a section that disucsses reference frames separate from the
    - Cartographic standards should have map projection information, scale, etc.
  - Data format standards:
    - Separate thing. How do you store data? Does this need additional information?
  - Lunar Geodesy Cartography Working Group (Cartographic or data format section)
    - Thought about tiling. How do you separate the data? Do we have / endorse a quad system?
    - Tiling?
    - When tiling schemes are in conflict that causes interoperability issues.
  - Need to continue having lunar quads?
    - Do we need to explain them or recommend their use?
Motion:
- Clean, add context, reorganize, executive summary, and solicit for feedback.
Open floor

Action Items

From last meeting:
- All: Review governance documents. Async discussion as appropriate. Goal is to be able to discuss in person anything where consensus is hard to find in January.
- All: Think about an LPSC abstract (due 2 days before our January meeting). Likely a great opportunity to publicize our work. Discuss async if possible to keep space for standards discussion. I (Jay) can write a lunar/europa SDI one or a separate lunar and Europa one. Anyone on here can first author this too!
- Jay: Clean, add context, reorganize, executive summary, and solicit for feedback.