ArcticSDP RFQ Clarifications
ArcticSDP RFQ Clarifications
This Clarifications document presents questions that were received as of 30 May 2016 at
0900 U.S. Eastern Time. Responses to these questions are provided below. Please send
any corrections or additional questions to techdesk@opengeospatial.org.
Revision Log
Date this Question’s
Most Recent Answer
Was Posted
Responded by
Question Number(s)
26 May 2016
Ingo Simonis
Q1 updated 8 June 2016
26 May 2016
Ingo Simonis
Q2
31 May 2016
Terry Idol
Q3
8 June 2016
Terry Idol
Q10, Q11
Questions & Answers
Q1: CSW-Pub/Sub
Question: Reading the RFQ technical architecture, I wonder whether there could be a
potential interest for a PubSub-enabled CSW in this pilot. In fact, the technical architecture
mentions a CSW, but does not specifically require asynchronous capabilities or
publish/subscribe support. However I would think such functionalities could enrich the pilot,
and possibly the demo.
Answer: Yes, a CSW with support for Pub-Sub is certainly of interest to the pilot. Any
deliverable identified in the RFQ would be eligible for funding. Having extra support to other
open standards definitely would make the proposal more interesting.
Q2: netCDF
Question: The RFQ indicates that netCDF format should be supported. However, it does not
foresee a specific work item for a netCDF library of sort. I’ve been working in the past on the
netCDF-Uncertainty conventions (now an OGC Discussion Paper) and I wonder if this could
be of interest too.
Answer: This pilot is targeting a demonstration of available capabilities, less the extension of
existing ones, thus adding uncertainty conventions to the netCDF data would only be
included if demonstrated as part of a client-server interaction. If there is anything you can
imagine, then it is of interest.
Q3: Funding level
Question: What type of funding should be expected?
Answer: The funding is similar to past OGC Pilots per each component. Keep in mind that
Pilots are considered instantiations of more mature products than in other OGC Initiatives.
This should imply that there will be substantially less research/development and is the
standing up or implementations of existing products or data sets.
For those who have not worked on OGC Initiatives previously, the Cost Sharing portion is
very important. The sponsor funding is not intended to fund all the work being performed by
the Pilot Participant. Rather, the sponsor funding is intended to assist in offsetting of up to
half of the expenses.
Q4: Focus of Pilot
Question: What exactly is the focus of the pilot, and if there would be an ideal product being
produced by the pilot, what would it look like?
Answer: The focus of the pilot is the demonstration of interoperability and the efficient
exchange and processing of data between components with standardized interfaces and
support for standardized exchange formats.
Q5: OGC membership
Question: Do all participants in the proposal need to be OGC members or just one?
Answer: The organization OGC is contracting (Prime contractor) must be an OGC member,
as well as all organizations that attend pilot meetings and join pilot email lists. You are free to
do any further subcontracting on e.g. implementation work with non-OGC members.
However, these subcontractors will NOT be able to attend the Pilot meetings or represent
the Prime contractor if they are not OGC members.
Q6: Add. Architecture and Components
Question: If we do have additional ideas beyond what is requested in the RFQ, does it
makes sense to include them in our response, even if they address aspects that are not
standardized yet?
Answer: Yes, absolutely, but please keep in mind that the focus of the pilot is on
demonstrating interoperability among components from different vendors that comply to
OGC standards, less on new technical developments. There is no funding available for
components that are not identified in the RFQ.
Q7: Deadline extension
Question: How likely is it that the deadline will be extended?
Answer: Very unlikely, as we need to conclude all review and negotiations before the
summer break.
Q8: Number of work items per proposal
Question: How many work items shall be addressed in a single proposal?
Answer: You are free to address as many work items as you like. OGC favors funding rather
less than more components per participant to have better interoperability testing
opportunities.
Q9: Travel costs
Question: Can any travel costs be reimbursed by the project?
Answer: Unfortunately, no. Travel costs may NOT be reimbursed by the project.
Q10: Visualizing 3D data
Question: I saw that the DEM of the Arctic is in raster grid format.Is this the final data model
for DEM? or are you open to other models like TINs?? I wanted to know if TINs can be seen
as one other way of storing (visualizing) Arctic terrains in this project?
Answer: Absolutely. The idea for the project is the sharing of data. If the TIN can be shared
via a published open standard, this would be very interesting. Both DEMs and TINs are used
world wide. The purpose of this project is NOT to pick one over the other, but to show if or
how the data holdings can be exposed and shared.
This Clarifications document presents questions that were received as of 30 May 2016 at
0900 U.S. Eastern Time. Responses to these questions are provided below. Please send
any corrections or additional questions to techdesk@opengeospatial.org.
Revision Log
Date this Question’s
Most Recent Answer
Was Posted
Responded by
Question Number(s)
26 May 2016
Ingo Simonis
Q1 updated 8 June 2016
26 May 2016
Ingo Simonis
Q2
31 May 2016
Terry Idol
Q3
8 June 2016
Terry Idol
Q10, Q11
Questions & Answers
Q1: CSW-Pub/Sub
Question: Reading the RFQ technical architecture, I wonder whether there could be a
potential interest for a PubSub-enabled CSW in this pilot. In fact, the technical architecture
mentions a CSW, but does not specifically require asynchronous capabilities or
publish/subscribe support. However I would think such functionalities could enrich the pilot,
and possibly the demo.
Answer: Yes, a CSW with support for Pub-Sub is certainly of interest to the pilot. Any
deliverable identified in the RFQ would be eligible for funding. Having extra support to other
open standards definitely would make the proposal more interesting.
Q2: netCDF
Question: The RFQ indicates that netCDF format should be supported. However, it does not
foresee a specific work item for a netCDF library of sort. I’ve been working in the past on the
netCDF-Uncertainty conventions (now an OGC Discussion Paper) and I wonder if this could
be of interest too.
Answer: This pilot is targeting a demonstration of available capabilities, less the extension of
existing ones, thus adding uncertainty conventions to the netCDF data would only be
included if demonstrated as part of a client-server interaction. If there is anything you can
imagine, then it is of interest.
Q3: Funding level
Question: What type of funding should be expected?
Answer: The funding is similar to past OGC Pilots per each component. Keep in mind that
Pilots are considered instantiations of more mature products than in other OGC Initiatives.
This should imply that there will be substantially less research/development and is the
standing up or implementations of existing products or data sets.
For those who have not worked on OGC Initiatives previously, the Cost Sharing portion is
very important. The sponsor funding is not intended to fund all the work being performed by
the Pilot Participant. Rather, the sponsor funding is intended to assist in offsetting of up to
half of the expenses.
Q4: Focus of Pilot
Question: What exactly is the focus of the pilot, and if there would be an ideal product being
produced by the pilot, what would it look like?
Answer: The focus of the pilot is the demonstration of interoperability and the efficient
exchange and processing of data between components with standardized interfaces and
support for standardized exchange formats.
Q5: OGC membership
Question: Do all participants in the proposal need to be OGC members or just one?
Answer: The organization OGC is contracting (Prime contractor) must be an OGC member,
as well as all organizations that attend pilot meetings and join pilot email lists. You are free to
do any further subcontracting on e.g. implementation work with non-OGC members.
However, these subcontractors will NOT be able to attend the Pilot meetings or represent
the Prime contractor if they are not OGC members.
Q6: Add. Architecture and Components
Question: If we do have additional ideas beyond what is requested in the RFQ, does it
makes sense to include them in our response, even if they address aspects that are not
standardized yet?
Answer: Yes, absolutely, but please keep in mind that the focus of the pilot is on
demonstrating interoperability among components from different vendors that comply to
OGC standards, less on new technical developments. There is no funding available for
components that are not identified in the RFQ.
Q7: Deadline extension
Question: How likely is it that the deadline will be extended?
Answer: Very unlikely, as we need to conclude all review and negotiations before the
summer break.
Q8: Number of work items per proposal
Question: How many work items shall be addressed in a single proposal?
Answer: You are free to address as many work items as you like. OGC favors funding rather
less than more components per participant to have better interoperability testing
opportunities.
Q9: Travel costs
Question: Can any travel costs be reimbursed by the project?
Answer: Unfortunately, no. Travel costs may NOT be reimbursed by the project.
Q10: Visualizing 3D data
Question: I saw that the DEM of the Arctic is in raster grid format.Is this the final data model
for DEM? or are you open to other models like TINs?? I wanted to know if TINs can be seen
as one other way of storing (visualizing) Arctic terrains in this project?
Answer: Absolutely. The idea for the project is the sharing of data. If the TIN can be shared
via a published open standard, this would be very interesting. Both DEMs and TINs are used
world wide. The purpose of this project is NOT to pick one over the other, but to show if or
how the data holdings can be exposed and shared.