Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “space mission interoperability”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

220 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2019

Standards and Best Practices - Two NASA Examples

Formal international standards as well as promotion of community or recommended practices have their place in ensuring "FAIRness" of data. Data management in NASA's Earth Observation System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) has benefited from both of these avenues to a significant extent. The purpose of this paper is to present one example of each of these, which promote (re)usability. The first is an ISO standard for specifying preservation content from Earth observation missions. The work on this started in 2011, informally within the Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP) in the US, while the European Space Agency (ESA) was leading an effort on Long-Term Data Preservation (LTDP). Resulting from the ESIP discussions was NASA's Preservation Content Specification, which was applied in 2012 as a requirement for NASA's new missions. ESA's Preserved Data Set Content (PDSC) document was codified into a document adopted by the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS). It was recognized that it would be useful to combine PCS and PDSC into an ISO standard to ensure consistency in data preservation on a broader international scale. This standard, numbered ISO 19165-2 has been under development since mid-2017. The second is an example of developing recommendations for "best practices" within more limited (still fairly broad) communities. A Data Product Developers' Guide (DPDG) is currently being developed by one of NASA's Earth Science Data System Working Groups (ESDSWGs). It is for use by developers of products to be derived from Earth observation data to improve product (re)usability. One of the challenges in developing the guide is the fact that there are already many applicable standards and guides. The relevant information needs to be selected and expressed in a succinct manner, with appropriate pointers to references. The DPDG aims to compile the most applicable parts of earlier guides into a single document outlining the typical development process for Earth Science data products. Standards and best practices formally endorsed by the Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS) Standards Office (ESO), outputs from ESDSWGs (e.g., Dataset Interoperability Working Group, and Data Quality Working Group), and recommendations from Distributed Active Archive Centers and data producers are emphasized.

Ramapriyan, Hampapuram↗
NASA NTRS2024

Tracking Community Building in Open Science

Open Science is enabled by a vibrant community of researchers who regularly engage with the data, from its production to its organization, curation, archiving, dissemination, analysis, and publication. This presentation will examine community building in open science. The NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR) makes data available to the public following the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) principles. OSDR takes open science further with the OS Analysis Working Groups (AWGs) that facilitate community development and promotion. The primary activity of each AWG is to establish and validate analytical processes to generate higher-order data from data housed in OSDR. There are a number of these groups on various topics, including the Animal AWG, Plant AWG, Microbial AWG, Multi-Omics AWG, AI/ML AWG, and the Ames Life Sciences Data Archive (ALSDA) AWG. The international volunteers participating in these AWGs come from academia, citizen science initiatives, industry, and government. They include researchers, principal investigators, professors, trained hobbyists, and students from various domains and disciplines. Anyone may request to join the AWGs, and membership requests are vetted monthly by the group organizers before granting admission. Core to membership is demonstrated expertise through records of training, integrity, work in the professed domain(s), and good community standing. Regular virtual meetings are held for each AWG, with a varying cadence depending on the group's needs and goals. AWG communities share their expertise in research including cutting edge tools, software, frameworks, data formats, and libraries accelerating research collectively. This collaborative approach helps community members cross technology gaps and identify emerging challenges. These diverse communities encompass a wide range of individuals hailing from various sectors within the Science Mission Directorate and beyond. They serve as a means to promote and enhance transparency, accessibility, and inclusion. An annual AWG Symposium brings contributors together in person. Participation in AWGs can be synchronous or asynchronous, with some groups performing most of their work in off hours. Participants gain valuable skills and connections that allow them to add value to their communities and new organizations that they join, resulting in an expanded return on investment for the space life science community. Open science is increasingly a federal mandate and initiatives like NASA's Transform to Open Science and instruments like the Decadal Survey of Biological and Physical Sciences in Space demonstrate the need to carefully consider best practices in this domain. Here, we present greater detail about the makeup and participation metrics of the various AWGs affiliated with OSDR and details of successful peer-reviewed publication campaigns.

Christina M Johnson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Tracking Community Building in Open Science

Open Science is enabled by a vibrant community of researchers who regularly engage with the data, from its production to its organization, curation, archiving, dissemination, analysis, and publication. This presentation will examine community building in open science. The NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR) makes data available to the public following the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) principles. OSDR takes open science further with the OS Analysis Working Groups (AWGs) that facilitate community development and promotion. The primary activity of each AWG is to establish and validate analytical processes to generate higher-order data from data housed in OSDR. There are a number of these groups on various topics, including the Animal AWG, Plant AWG, Microbial AWG, Multi-Omics AWG, AI/ML AWG, and the Ames Life Sciences Data Archive (ALSDA) AWG. The international volunteers participating in these AWGs come from academia, citizen science initiatives, industry, and government. They include researchers, principal investigators, professors, trained hobbyists, and students from various domains and disciplines. Anyone may request to join the AWGs, and membership requests are vetted monthly by the group organizers before granting admission. Core to membership is demonstrated expertise through records of training, integrity, work in the professed domain(s), and good community standing. Regular virtual meetings are held for each AWG, with a varying cadence depending on the group's needs and goals. AWG communities share their expertise in research including cutting edge tools, software, frameworks, data formats, and libraries accelerating research collectively. This collaborative approach helps community members cross technology gaps and identify emerging challenges. These diverse communities encompass a wide range of individuals hailing from various sectors within the Science Mission Directorate and beyond. They serve as a means to promote and enhance transparency, accessibility, and inclusion. An annual AWG Symposium brings contributors together in person. Participation in AWGs can be synchronous or asynchronous, with some groups performing most of their work in off hours. Participants gain valuable skills and connections that allow them to add value to their communities and new organizations that they join, resulting in an expanded return on investment for the space life science community. Open science is increasingly a federal mandate and initiatives like NASA's Transform to Open Science and instruments like the Decadal Survey of Biological and Physical Sciences in Space demonstrate the need to carefully consider best practices in this domain. Here, we present greater detail about the makeup and participation metrics of the various AWGs affiliated with OSDR and details of successful peer-reviewed publication campaigns.

Christina M Johnson↗
NASA NTRS2007

A Contrast in Use of Metrics in Earth Science Data Systems

In recent years there has been a surge in the number of systems for processing, archiving and distributing remotely sensed data. Such systems, working independently as well as in collaboration, have been contributing greatly to the advances in the scientific understanding of the Earth system, as well as utilization of the data for nationally and internationally important applications. Among such systems, we consider those that are developed by or under the sponsorship of NASA to fulfill one of its strategic objectives: "Study Earth from space to advance scientific understanding and meet societal needs." NASA's Earth science data systems are of varying size and complexity depending on the requirements they are intended to meet. Some data systems are regarded as NASA's "Core Capabilities" that provide the basic infrastructure for processing, archiving and distributing a set of data products to a large and diverse user community in a robust and reliable manner. Other data systems constitute "Community Capabilities". These provide specialized and innovative services to data users and/or research products offering new scientific insight. Such data systems are generally supported by NASA through peer reviewed competition. Examples of Core Capabilities are 1. Earth Observing Data and Information System (EOSDIS) with its Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs), Science Investigator-led Processing Systems (SIPSs), and the EOS Clearing House (ECHO); 2. Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM) Science Data and Information System (TSDIS); 3. Ocean Data Processing System (ODPS); and 4. CloudSat Data Processing Center. Examples of Community Capabilities are projects under the Research, Education and Applications Solutions Network (REASON), and Advancing Collaborative Connections for Earth System Science (ACCESS) Programs. In managing these data system capabilities, it is necessary to have well-established goals and to measure progress relative to them. Progress is measured through "metrics", which can be a combination of quantitative as well as qualitative assessments. The specific metrics of interest depend on the user of the metrics as well as the type of data system. The users of metrics can be data system managers, program managers, funding agency or the public. Data system managers need metrics for assessing and improving the performance of the system and for future planning. Program managers need metrics to assess progress and the value of the data systems sponsored by them. Also, there is a difference in the metrics needed for core capabilities that tend to be more complex, larger and longer-term compared to community capabilities and the community capabilities that tend to be simpler, smaller and shorter-term. Even among community capabilities there are differences; hence the same set of metrics does not apply to all. Some provide data products to users, some provide services that enable better utilization of data or interoperability among other systems, and some are a part of a larger project where provision of data or services is only a minor activity. There is also a contrast between metrics used for internal and external purposes. Examples of internal purposes are: ensuring that the system meets its requirements, and planning for evolution and growth. Examples of external purposes are: providing to sponsors indicators of success of the systems, demonstrating the contributions of the system to overall program success, etc. This paper will consider EOSDIS, REASON and ACCESS programs to show the various types of metrics needed and how they need to be tailored to the types of data systems while maintaining the overall management goals of measuring progress and contributions made by the data systems.

Ramapriyan, Hampapuram↗