Skip to content

TIG Online Meeting 2020 10 16

Jump to bottom
James Passmore edited this page Jan 18, 2021 · 27 revisions

OneGeology Technical Implementation Group Online Meeting ~ Friday 16 October 2020

Invited

77 technical contacts from the OneGeology administrative database

Poll for date https://doodle.com/poll/ns6kfhbdh4apb47d?utm_campaign=poll_added_participant_admin&utm_medium=email&utm_source=poll_transactional&utm_content=gotopoll-cta#table

18 respondents

Present

  • James Passmore (JP) ~ British Geological Survey (BGS)
  • Andrew Zaffos (AZ) ~ Arizona Geological Survey (AGS)
  • Nicolas Mauroy (NM) ~ Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (BRGM)
  • Magda Roos (MR) ~ Council for Geoscience (CGS)
  • Arto Karttunen (AK) ~ Geological Survey of Finland (GTK)
  • Marcus Sen (MS) ~ British Geological Survey (BGS)
  • Evgeniy Kovalenko (EK) ~ A P Karpinskey Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI)
  • Carlos Mota (CM) ~ Serviço Geológico do Brasil (CRPM)
  • Urszula Stepien (US) ~ Polish Geological Institute (PGI)
  • Hiran Silva Dias (HD) ~ Serviço Geológico do Brasil (CRPM)
  • Laura Bookman (LB) ~ Arizona Geological Survey (AGS)
  • Katarzyna Jóźwik (KJ) ~ Polish Geological Institute (PGI)

Apologies

  • Ollie Raymond ~ Geoscience Australia
  • Héryk Julien ~ Commission géologique du Canada / Ressources naturelles Canada (NRCan/RNCan)
  • Lucie Kondrová ~ Czech Geological Survey
  • Jouni Vuollo ~ Geological Survey of Finland (GTK)
  • Pasquale DiDonato ~ swisstopo

Agenda

Discussion

  1. Minutes of last meeting were agreed

  2. Actions from last meeting

    1. James & Nic to clean issues in Forge and do Manual migration to GitHub. ~ ongoing

    All open issues from Forge have been migrated by NM. There is still a need to check whether these issues are still valid for released Portal and also a need to better link old Forge issue numbers to GitHUb issue numbers. Action JP to do a first pass of migrated issues. Action JP and NM to do a second pass.

    1. All new tickets in GitHub ~ done
    2. Changelog to be implemented in GitHub going forward ~ done

    Changelogs page has been created as: https://github.com/OneGeology/OneGeology_Portal/wiki/Changelogs

    1. BRGM to look at validator requirements/options / https://github.com/OneGeology/TechnicalDiscussion/issues/13 ~ ongoing

    BGS is also looking a validation options for services as part of self-help / help-desk functions. BRGM looking onto use of Selenium (https://www.selenium.dev/) or cypress (https://www.cypress.io/) to make some integration validation.

    1. ACTION NM: change portal to ignore the parent geographic areas for services and maintain hierarchy in Portal itself. / https://github.com/OneGeology/TechnicalDiscussion/issues/33 ~ ongoing

  3. Technical updates and progress reports

    1. JP reported that outside of OneGeology project, BGS is looking at using OneGeology minerals service as exemplar in a mobile phone application framework. Looking at using https://terria.io/ and skinning it for OneGeology and to share on OneGeology GitHub https://github.com/OneGeology/TerriaMap
    2. JP reported looking into use of MapProxy (used by NRCAN and VSEGI), for putting a set of improved metadata in front of old running services. AZ volunteered the AGS services as a test candidate
    3. JP reported that the OneGeology website is undergoing a revamp, and requested input for new content, comments on broken content, etc.
    4. NM. Provided update on the porting of OneGeology code to GitHub, and is expecting it to be done by the end of the year. Still some internal discussion on appropriate licensing, and still needs to do some code-base cleaning to ensure no security details are released.

  4. Portal Statistics

  • NM demonstrated the BRGM web analytics portal, and a discussion was had over which statistics could be used to provide a report to the board. Action NM to ensure that as well as current output also to include most common layers not automatically loaded, and a report of a selection of users showing good behaviour
  • HD asked about using Google Analytics, and discussion about using it in the future. Not sure which is better. Action NM, to test using Google Analytics as well as current tool on the portal, so we can compare outputs.
  1. Service Monitoring
  • NM reported that BRGM had previously looked at GeoHealthCheck but not the current version
  • NM reported that BRGM are using Zabbix to monitor services, but not sure what to report.
  • Discussion on a number of use cases: Letting providers knowing their services are down, monitoring service up-time as part of accreditation, knowing when services are disappeared altogether so they can be removed from the catalog, some way of notifying users that the service is not available with some indication of why, or how long it has been down.

  1. Issues

    • Discussion on whether to go through all open issues
    • Discussion on SLD issues
    • CM, mentioned issued with GeoServer 2.17 (and downgraded to 2.16).
    • Discussion on whether CPRM will need to configure a new GeoSciML service, currently have a 3.n service to keep the 5 star accreditation rating. Portal should support 4.0, 4.1 (ideally 4.1). Discussion as to whether the portal should still support 3 queries.
    • JP clarified that 5 star required GeoSciML v3 (or later), so independent of whether the portal supports version 3, the accreditation does not require latest version.
    • HD mentioned Dynatrace as a commercial solution for monitoring servers (currently using Zabbix).

  2. Requests for assistance

    • HD mentioned that they were about to start creating new services in the next week or so and asked JP and NM if they would be available to help if required.
    • JP Clarified the best contact for help in configuring software was onegeologyhelp AT bgs.ac.uk, and the best location for reporting issues with the portal or in the documentation was the GitHub issues pages.
    • CM specifically is expecting needing help in understanding and configuring GeoServer application schema. A discussion on whether it was better to migrate the existing application or to start from new. MS asked for CPRM to feedback any issues or optimization tips through GitHub, issues and wiki.
    • KJ also reported using GeoServer application schema to help provide INSPIRE services, and will feedback and issue and tips etc.

  3. AOB

    1. JP asked whether members were happy with existing support channels; no requests to use anything other than help-desk and GitHub

    2. AZ mentioned US publication of a new data model for geological data and implications for US OneGeology services (reference https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/11b10/tm11b10.pdf); which will be mandatory for all new maps made in the US. In conjunction with the release of this new schema the USGS are redoing their national geologic geodatabase which is the USGS service catalog of maps, to be designed around getting the data in the new schema. To discuss perhaps in January how we might have a GeoSciML endpoint on this service that could provide access to all US state survey data rather than having independent services.

    3. MR reported Council for Geoscience have now established a new IT infrastructure and have published a new 1:1 Million map which is a dramatic update on the previous version, and very keen to have this published as a OneGeology service. Action JP to get new help-desk member to contact MR to assist with ESRI service configuration.

    4. Request for TIG members to provide time zone, to help meeting planning in the future

    5. Date of next meeting, it was agreed that we should meet more regularly and stick to 3 months or less

Issues

Forge Issues now migrated to GitHub ~ https://github.com/OneGeology/TechnicalDiscussion/issues

Quick Links

Actions

TODO: Add list of actions (WIP)

  1. JP to circulate poll for next meeting in January
Clone this wiki locally