Meeting 2023 09 11 to 2023 09 13 - wmo-im/tt-wismd GitHub Wiki

Date/Time

Location

Attendees

Team

Name Agency GitHub handle Attendance
Mr Tom KRALIDIS (Lead) MSC @tomkralidis x
Mr Guillaume AUBERT EUMETSAT @gaubert x
Mr Xinqiang HAN CMA @Amienshxq x
Mr Steve OLSON NOAA @solson-nws x (remote)
Mr Ján OSUSKY HMEI @josusky x
Mr David PODEUR Météo-France @davidpodeur
Ms Antje SCHREMMER DWD @antje-s x
Ms Julia SEILAND DWD @jsieland x
Mr Masato FUJIMOTO JMA x(remote)

WMO Secretariat

Name Agency GitHub handle Attendance
Mr Enrico FUCILE WMO @efucile
Ms Anna MILAN WMO @amilan17
Mr Dave Berry WMO @david-i-berry

Agenda

Day 1

  • 9h - 9h15: Welcome and opening comments (open session)
  • 9h15 - 10h: WIS2 Metadata overview (Tom) (open session)
  • 10h - 10h10: break
  • 10h10 - 12h: presentations by all TT members (10 minutes each) on WIS2 and metadata planning
  • 12h - 13h30: lunch break
  • 13h30 - 13h45: presentations by all TT members (10 minutes each) on WIS2 and metadata planning
    • NOAA (Steve)
  • 13h45 - 13h55: Previous meeting minutes and actions (all)
  • 13h50 - 14h05: Secretariat updates
  • 14h05 - 14h15: break
  • 14h15 - 16h: WNM - issue sweep

Day 2

Day 3

  • 9h - 12h WCMP2
  • 12h - 13h: lunch break
  • 13h - 13h30: issue sweep
  • 13h30 - 13h45: presentations by all TT members (10 minutes each) on WIS2 and metadata planning
  • 13h45 - 15h: review of actions and INFCOM-3 deliverables, planning / timelines for delivery of WCMP2, WNM, WTH for begin December 2023
  • 15h - 15h10: break
  • 15h10 - 17h: catalogues (federation, search/SEO/schema.org/JSON-LD)
  • 17h: Close

(as time permits)

  • JSON schema development
  • technical artifacts
    • WCMP2 (schemas.wmo.int)
    • WNM (schemas.wmo.int)
    • WTH (codes.wmo.int)
  • Reference implementations
    • WCMP2: pywcmp, wis2box
    • GDC: wis2-gdc, pywiscat
    • WNM: pywis-pubsub, wis2box
    • WTH: pywcmp / wis2box

Notes

Day 1 (11 September)

INTRODUCTIONS

  • Tom opened with an overview of the agenda
  • Round table introductions
  • (EF) we need to engage with all the members to move from GTS to WIS2, which is more flexible and we are in pilot phase right now; we are interacting with a lot of Members (38!) who are trying to implement WIS2 (for pilot); WIS MD is important because it will help will data discovery; Our colleagues are here because we engage with all of the programs and communities; We have cryo, ocean, hydro, satellites, etc.
  • (HH) WIS2 pilot phase for 8 months so far and we made great progress. We have a GB running, two GCs and more than 30 WIS2 nodes running; some nodes are running WIS2Box and some Members are developing their own systems; We are 3 months away for the pre-operational phase; WISMD is very important and critical for understanding the data (TK) we also have two GDCs, but we need to have metadata for the catalogs;
  • Tom’s Introduction (PPT)[share link]
  • Two GDCs available: GDC (Canada) ; GDC (China)
  • (Yuki) 1) TT-NWPMD is expected to provide draft TH by December? 2) have you decided on the required metadata properties with codelists? (TK) 1) it would be good to have the initial versions ready for first draft, but we expect it to be updated over time; 2) I would call it a best practice for NWP instead of a profile; and we need to make good examples ready for different datatypes;
  • (Guillaume) all of the standards are a big step forward for lowering the barrier, but the TH management is not lowering the barrier; satellite operators have different standards and it would be interesting to see how they work “together”; (TK) we are talking about the management of TH; regarding OGC API records and STAC there is a conversation in OGC too; we can get into these details during the discussion on WNM;
  • (Rodica) 1) for the domains that are further behind on the TH development and there are concerns from GCW; 2) it would be good to have clarity/consistency between WIGOS and WIS metadata; The cryo community puts in a lot of effort for creating the WIGOS MD and they lose energy for creating a second set of metadata; (TK) re discussions with Oystein and cryo: we have talked a lot about addressing his concerns and most of them are addressed, esp datasets from a station; also talking harvesting from GCW into WIS2 as well as with other domains, e.g., ocean community—these will extend the way WIS2 addresses federation; also talked with GCW about vocabularies and his concerns are addressed; (ACTION: TK will meet with Rodica and Oystein); 2) there is very little to no duplication across WIGOS/WIS MD, but there should be linkages; Note also that WIGOS and WIS are addressing different granularities; (Rodica) an explanation on the linkages is important, please include in the work; (EF) we are planning on having a SC-IMT in January 2024 and the f(ocus will be programs and how WIS2 engages with the programs to prepare for a report for INFCOM-3 with gaps;

Presentations on Metadata Plans

  • Tom (MSC plans)

    • data dissemination platform that outputs to various systems; (Antje) does it have two levels? GUI and API? (TK) we usually leave the Uis for downstream and have the API layer for users; API:Zarr available too.
    • WIS2 goal: to reuse the entire platform; everything has a heavy data governance process; will add the WIS2 curation and MQTT (from AMQP); and add a broker; and add a GDC; Ozone URV(?) uses the same platform but a different instance (?);
    • The GDC will ingest, validate and run KPIs on metadata
    • MSC has an internal GitLab repo for managing metadata configurations (YAML files); there are some data managers who manage the configs themselves; (Antje) so the metadata is generated from the config files? (TK) yes and they are published when the user wants them to be published; there is some admin process because a dataset needs to be approved by the CIO; (Antje) how many people are working on the configs? (TK) activities are spread across multiple people and it’s about a quarter FTE in total; the data steward has to approve before publication;
    • Plan to be ready by end of March 2024

  • Julia/Ante (DWD plans)

    • Providing GC: local message broker subscribes to the GB
    • Providing WIS2 node for DWD products
    • GTStoWIS2 gateway
    • Re-using software components in place
    • (EF) are you also providing NWP data? (Antje) have the capability but not doing it yet? (Antje) we are doing it as is for pilot “as-is”;
    • Monitoring metrics will be published to OpenData;
    • Metadata: focusing on core data for observations; currently using text editor, but will use a metadata editor later;
    • Metadata validation Is integrated in the WIS portal (?)
    • (TK) you have cache metadata that you are getting from the GB? (Antje) yes; (TK) were you going to do a zip or archive file of all the metadata? This might be valuable for WIS2 if needed to repopulate the catalog; the GC metadata could have a link to the metadata archive, right? (Antje) at the moment it’s not separated from the other directories;
    • (TK) how do you deal with content creation of metadata? (Antje) …?... ; we think its good to have an editor because autogenerated can result in records that have too fine of a granularity;
    • (TK) does the metadata (nonWIS2) go elsewhere? (A/J) WIS1, INSPIRE and also sent to a German data discovery portal for all public organizations; (TK) INSPIRE is also looking at OGC API records;
    • (AM) do you also provide WIGOS MD? (A/J) maybe it’s another part of the organization… will ask;

  • Xingiang (CMA plans)

    • Participating in pilot phase for GB and GDC and WIS2Node
    • Compared topics and messages b/t GB CMA and GB MF;
    • http://gdc.wis.cma.cn
    • Plans: metadata editor (because they are GISC for areas of responsibility); demo tool for metadata monitoring; demo tools for metadata KPIs;
    • Suggestions: conversion tool from GTS to WIS2 (problem with granularity); (TK) we don’t want to lift and shift from GTS metadata to WCMP2;
    • (AM) are we creating WCMP2 records for GTS data? (all) NO! (EF) metadata will only be in the GTS headers and it will be temporary during the transition; and there is a plan to do the reverse (WIS2 to GTS); (TK) the notification message will have an option for GTS and definition of the notification message will be in the Guide. (EF) It should be in the transition guide. (TK) we are not putting GTS information in the release of the WNM message standard; (EF) noting that noone is volunteering to create a WIS2 -> GTS (HH) GTS > WIS2 is interesting because from day 1 we already have GTS data in WIS2; for WIS2 -> GTS the countries can continue with interruption but the mapping is messy; maybe there can be software that allows Members with GTS systems to connect to the WIS2 systems for data download -- it will be simpler; (TK) The GTS headers cannot be populated from WIS2…? (EF) the Gateway should figure this out and it will use the messaging systems already in place; (JO) …?.... (EF) none of the WIS2 node software wll handle this use case yet
    • (GA) slide 19…?... (TK)
    • (XC) why are the connections ‘indirect’? Is this because you don’t know…? (XH) yes (XC) WMO will try to provide you the details
    • (GA) are you going to share the demo tool for metadata generation? (XH) right now it’s just a demo, but maybe in the future;

  • Lunch

Presentations on metadata plans (cont.)

  • Guillaume (EUMETSAT plans)
    • Going to integrate WIS2 capabilities into EUMETSAT Big Data Services
    • Pilot phase collections: NRT, Historic and climate data records
    • EUMDAC for easy quick download of data –
    • User portal (replaces the catalog [? Navigator]) – will support the metadata flavors from internal JSON dialect;
    • By end of 2024 – datastore and user portal will provide OGC API Recs (and STAC API), as well as Open Search; WCMP2 and STAC metadata records
    • By end of 2025 - MQTT broker for WIS2 use cases and for EUMETSAT use cases;
    • (EF) phase 1 will include all GTS data on WIS2 by when? (GA) by March 2024 (to be confirmed);
    • (EF) Are you developing any TH for your products? (GA) not deeply working on it (EF) how should we coordinate? (GA) CGMS is the best way, WG IV; ACTION: Guillaume let Enrico know when CGMS WG 4 is meeting (GA) EUMETSAT would like to tackle the TH next year
    • (TK) Amazon dropped Open Search and OGC spec is broken; OGC API Records will have an Open Search and this is what worries me about STAC because it’s a community standard (GA) sometimes community standards are adopted (e.g. NetCDF); tooling helps; (TK) STAC is not going through a standards body but it will become an OGC standard; the WNM message is basically STAC without the assets; you can add STAC to the WNM message; The pub/sub integration: there will be an OGC standard on pub/subs and this will help us with a future version of WCMP2; Can you extend STAC? (GA) not many actors are doing that but also haven’t seen much convergence;
    • (TK) are you downsampling the data for WCS? (GA) only using it for specific datasets;
    • (TK) how does EUMETSAT create metadata? (GA) we are going to hire someone to manage the content in a relational DB to generate the metadata from; At the moment there are two people who are managing new data/collections with minimal focus on metadata content; We want the metadata business to appear higher in the organization and this new position will be helpful for managing the content; We also want to define a real data model;
    • (TK) what is the catalog backend? (GA) Elasticsearch and SOLR for search/faceting;
    • (AM) do you have a strong idea of what satellite data is WMO core? (GA) not really; all EUMETSAT data will be advertised in WIS2 and recommended data will be downloadable from EUMETSAT;

General conversations

  • (TK) who’s has services on cloud and on premise? (GA) internal cloud only (DWD)
  • (GA) have a taxonomy that is fed by a CGMS group and EUMETSAT might have a different set of themes/concepts; and have satellites organized by mission; (TK) Canada has it’s own classification system as well and other countries have different
  • (TK) has anyone received feedback/pushback on departing from ISO or specifically on WCMP2? (All) no feedback yet, it’s too early;

Review previous actions

  • Discussion on PR 48 (add deletion)
  • Discussion on TH

Secretariat updates (Anna)

WNM Issue sweep

Day 2 (12 September)

WNM

  • Team reviewed WNM issues and subsequent PRs discussed yesterday
  • Team reviewed closed issues in WNM repository

WTH

  • Anna presented on a way to re-organize the GitHub with nested structures for level 8+ (issue #38)
  • Guillaume presented problems, best practices, and suggestions for TH (see presentation)
    • (Kai) …?... Would like to revisit the TH and agree that it shouldn’t be over complicated, noting that our use case will probably not explode MQTT because it was designed to handle a lot of topics
    • (TK) we should do an experiment (GA) a real test bed (TK) the bottom line is performance vs complexity (Kai) the performance impact probably comes from the number of different subscriptions, not the number of levels… (Antje) wildcards add complexity for (EF) TH is for 2 types of filtering for server side and client side; Can we move more of the filtering to the client side; let’s cut half of the TH tree and put it in the WNM to support client side filtering; (Jan) agreed; 1) …?... 2) there are two aspects, we can do some tests for scalability and we complexity for users (TK) complexity for users should be addressed by the metadata but the catalog doesn’t provide a “magical” access point; (Antje) the WNM can add an additional field for “keyword labels”; (Guillaume) we can put this facility in the catalog, e.g. this is the command line for subscribing to xyz (TK) and add helpers for aggregation; who does this? A single metadata record is not going to facilitate this – it’s a UI thing; (Kai) be careful with client side filtering – server side filtering is provided out of the box;
    • (GA) Enrico stated that it’s meant for filtering but note that version and wis2 don’t support this; (TK) the first three are in the first 3 are infrastructure (EF) the problem is not in the first 3; we need to have a critical view on what we want to eliminate; (Jan) countries and centre-ids create multiple TH options (EF) the country is a problem due to political problems; I recommend removing ‘country’. (TK) can the country be a property in the message? (EF) Centre-id is not a problem politically;
    • (Antje) we can also merge wis2 and centre-id into one level, this could be useful for multiple programs; (GA) it’s just pattern matching, but the more messages with pattern matching has a cost; (EF) it’s not a problem to have a long string; the problem is the exploding levels; less levels is better; (Antje) can we put the centre-id at the end, then there are less tree explosions
    • (TK) ACTION: we need to measure the problem – Request W2AT to create a test bed (Tom)
    • (TK) ACTION: remove country from the TH and add it as an optional field in the WNM; (EF) there will be an external table for centre-ids…
    • (Kai) two different use cases: 1) TH is clearly an issue for GB because of filtering 2) we also need to test the performance on the GCs because of the data volumes (TK) this is an example of not bundling the data (Kai) 2nd test phase….
    • (GA) how is the TH cast in stone after INFCOM-3? Can we implement this in a more agile way? (AM) …. (EF) we are cheating a little bit because we are putting these things in the Guide. Change to a topic can be viewed as minor (Jan) but a change can break operations (EF) software change management can handle this (TK) version really makes sense (Jan) version management…? (EF) this requires more coordination and we should keep the version in the TH; if we eliminate a level there needs to be a BIG gain;
    • Start with a test of current TH, without country
    • (TK) lunch time, move forward with L8+ refactor; Tom raise an issue with W2AT for test bed; (EF) we should remove country now; (Jan) can we use the pilot services? (EF) yes and GB is ready to produce fake data for testing (Antje) we need some agreed use cases for this test [ACTION: create issue in WIS2 Pilot for test bed of THs for GB and GC; ]

Lunch

WTH (continued)

  • Issue #38, change PR
  • Flat levels 1- 7
  • 8 : discipline
  • discplines.csv (ocean, weather..)
    • 9: weather
    • Weather.csv (analysis-predictions, alerts-advisories,observations)
    • 10 : analysis-predictions
    • analysis-predictions.csv
    • 10: alerts-advisories
    • alerts-advisories.csv
    • 10 : observations
    • observations.csv
    • 11 : surface-based
    • surface-based.csv
    • 11 : space-based
    • 9: oceans
    • oceans.csv

Guidance on centre-id .. https://github.com/wmo-im/wis2-topic-hierarchy/issues/51

  • (Steve) is the centre-id the organization or the producer ?
  • Discussions on the reverse domain name for centre-id with inclusion of countries and replacing the dots with dashes
  • (mock country and centre-id) https://github.com/wmo-im/wis2-topic-hierarchy/issues/48 – need more info
  • (parent column of country for centre-id) https://github.com/wmo-im/wis2-topic-hierarchy/issues/39 - parked
  • (business rules for WTH) https://github.com/wmo-im/wis2-topic-hierarchy/issues/35 - add requirements and recommendations
  • ACTION: all review business rules/specification
  • (publication artifacts) https://github.com/wmo-im/wis2-topic-hierarchy/issues/34 and https://github.com/wmo-im/wis2-topic-hierarchy/issues/26
  • Where does the WTH go? What do we give centres for implementation?
  • (Jan) CSVs are sufficient; (GA) JSON could be useful (TK) the current bundle doesn’t currently handle country/centre-id relationship, but otherwise, it’s simple list; (Jan) basic DB would be useful; (GA) SQL file; (AM) can WIS2 provide a Global Service to host/validate the WTH? (TK) TH validation is in the WIS2Box as an API;
  • The authoritative values of TH can be posted on codes registry, following the GH organization; noting that the registry is not an operational system that can be used for run-time validation
  • CSVs and zip file can be posted to schemas.wmo.int/wth/a (jan) keep a zip file of the structure itself too
  • (versions) https://github.com/wmo-im/wis2-topic-hierarchy/issues/25
  • (GA) encoding versioning into the TH is causing problems (Jan) we will have a lot more additions than removals; (Antje) where do we describe the versioning? (TK) In the guide
  • (GA) why don’t we change the version for each new release (incl. minor versions).
  • Guide needs to have something about change management around updates due to new versions of the specifications (ACTION: create issue for WIS2-Guide)

Day 3 (13 September)

Summary from yesterday, issue sweep of WTH

WCMP2

  • (TK) everytime we make an update to WCMP2 there is a downstream impact;
  • Team reviewed the agenda for the day
  • Issue sweep
  • Height https://github.com/wmo-im/wcmp2/issues/116- done
  • KPIs (https://github.com/wmo-im/wcmp2/issues/79) and GDC monitoring (https://github.com/wmo-im/wcmp2/wis2-guide/issues/15)
  • ACTION : add KPIs to spec document in the CI build
  • Discussion about how to include the versions in WCMP
  • ACTION: Julia update distributor contacts section and do a full review of the KPIs
  • ACTION: Add text for BPs on managing metadata and see if they are captured/referred to somewhere (e.g. Information Management section)
  • Discussion on how validation and KPIs should feed into monitoring and how to communicate this to the metadata providers
  • Discussion on how to feed and display monitoring (see wis2-metric-hierarchy GH repo)
  • Discussion on what MD KPI metrics should be sent to monitoring
  • Still need work on KPIs

WIGOS integration

  • Tom introduced the topic, see presentation
  • (Luis) some requirements: 1) avoiding duplication of efforts 2) to ensure consistency when entering related information at multiple points; IRL, the problems are currently about RTHs are managing content ..?... Someone has to a register a station on the WIS side and then they have to register again with OSCAR/Surface; Or visversa, a station is registered in OSCAR/Surface and then they are surprised that it doesn’t show up in WDQMS (TK) in WIS2 there is no concept of an RTH; (LN) volume C listed the schedule of observations, the list of parameters, but it’s not enough because you have to also include these in Volume C… What is the plan to overcome this situation? (Jan) the RTH registration is a practice of compiling individual reports for the RTH to create one bulletin; this practice will probably disappear with GTS;
  • (LN) there is a need to provide awareness and training on the “common issues”/training for both OSCAR and WIS at the same time; some members do both and some members only do one or the other; (TK) there are also discussions about the future of WMDR and wider integration of the standards within ET-Metadata (across WIS, WIGOS, CDMS); we are hoping to have a workshop on WMO metadata in 2024 to help clear the air/clarify on the metadata standards; e.g. someone from the airforce was asking questions about WMO Metadata and “where to start?? We need something for people to understand the difference between all of the different metadata standards; We should have a concerted effort by WMO to
  • (DB) there is also metadata in the BUFR data files; the problem is even broader then ET-Metadata;
  • (Antje) would it be useful to have a redirect list for stations to products that facilitates where the data from a station is used? And the reverse? So both sides see the linkage; (GA) from WIS to WIGOS with metadata links is only one way; (TK) technically, this is possible in the WIGOSMD with an xlink; (Luis) this will only work when OSCAR/Surface becomes part of the whole operational architecture; O/S was not designed to be an operational tool;
  • (TK) the WIS2 links show links to O/S, but it can be independent of the systems, the links can reference any other resource; operationalizing O/S is orthoganal;
  • (DB) from an archive perspective for a global dataset from many stations globally? (TK) you can define the facility set (DB) can a FS be nested? I would like to have an array of FSs; (Jan) you can have multiple facility sets linked
  • (GA) there are two OSCARS: Surface AND Space.
  • (AM) is the WCMP2 approach sufficient for the specification to support integration? (TK) examples help, WCMP2 needs to support various datatypes and ther may be a case where the vocabularies are repeated; WMP2 supports linkages in a generic way to any related information;
  • (DB) I think a next step should be a comprehensive standard that includes WIS, WIGOS as well as recognizing that metadata exists in the data files; (TK) we should be achieve that through a single or multiple documents; (GA) in parallel we can review all of the codes / code lists; (TK) we will be talking about codelists after lunch; On WIS2 side, we will move forward the approach currently defined in the specification and then there needs to be more done at the program level;
  • (LN) ET-WTR has been tasked by SC-ON to come up a draft proposal on how to improve the situation, in particular the situation previously described with consistency; this draft will be submitted to SC-ON. (EF) it’s important that this draft doesn’t provide solutions, but identifies the requirements; the solutions will be provided on the technical side;
  • Some of the comments have been captured in /wcmp2/issues/19
  • (EF) is there a similar requirements effort from climate? (DB) main issues are TH and data quality because the quality of the dataset needs to be there somewhere (EF) this is not a part of WCMP2 (TK) some of this dQ will be discussed this afternoon;

Lunch

Steve Olson on NOAAs plan (presentation)

  • NWS set up a GB, GC and W2node; will transition dev to prod to AWS (Office of Dissemination Cloud), but now on local servers; looking at how WIS2Services can replace TGFTP in NOAA;
  • Transforming existing records from WCMP to WCMP2
  • Building out metadata records for space-based, reanalysis, advisories-warnings;
  • (GA) can you explain more? (SO) moving away from services to more data focused for space-weather (GA) will this include satellite? (SO) yes, we plan on collaborating with you; also interested in getting model/ensemble data;
  • (SO) how do we move away from WIGOS station based nature of observations to a dataset? How do we work with this on the W2Node infrastructure? (TK) more of an implementation question; ACTION: We can discuss next week with Alex;
  • (Jan) you mentioned the conversion of WCMP to W2 records, was there some granularity conversion too? Or did you keep the original granularity? (SO) kept the original granularity and this is a challenge
  • (TK) what kind of processes do you have in place for metadata curation? (GH) to store the records and ingest process (TK) is there a continual review (SO) yes, there is a virtual ..?.. environment; (TK) we started talking about metadata lifecycle in the Guide (GA) we have some guidance on granularity problems, but the problems are still there; (AM) NCEI used to have a consistency checker to see what fields were similar this could be useful for determining the granularity (GA) we should try to build aggregations around similar data; (TK) examples are key for this; () each discipline should be developing best practices (GA) there could be KPI like evaluation of the metadata based on BPs for different disciplines
  • (AM) what kind of examples need to be ready for INFCOM-3 (TK) existing examples need to at least be valid to the current space ACTION: all check examples for validation and have a good KPI score;
  • (EF) what kind of code forms are you doing with METAR? (SO) converting to BUFR; (EF) we should have a meeting and I can help with this; (SO) note that METAR is pw protected, not public….
  • (GA) would you be able to share the experiments on broker solutions? It would be interesting to exchange information on this. (SO) yes, we are testing a lot and we are examining the benefit of multi-threaded vs single-threaded (?); tested up to 10K subs so far (GA) this could relate to the TH discussion and the need for the test bed;

WCMP2 issue sweep

  • https://github.com/wmo-im/wcmp2/issues/119, cite-as example
  • https://github.com/wmo-im/wcmp2/issues/118, preview example
  • https://github.com/wmo-im/wcmp2/issues/79 KPIs – review needed
  • https://github.com/wmo-im/wcmp2/issues/62, dwbp standard alignment – for later to include in BPs
  • https://github.com/wmo-im/wcmp2/issues/61, operational status
  • (GA) need to notation of discontinued (Jan) … (EF) discontinued can be ‘not available’ (TK) no, this means that the status is not available; (GA) climate also has some status for releases of climate records;
  • (AM) we should not go down the blackhole of trying to define the perfect codelist (all) agreed, but status is important;
  • (TK) if it needs to be faceted then a codelist is important; what about, first. Phase make is optional and provide some optional codelists to use;
  • Discussion about creating a ‘status’ property, themes, object or implement as a keyword
  • Decision: add an optional strongly typed status object with an option to identify the scheme; best practices should be similar/same within disciplines

WCMP2 codelists

  • Discussion on codelists management, currently very little in the Guide; add permissions; model is extensible by design; codelists defined by the std should be used as is
  • ACTIONS:
    • Change resource-type to notification-type in WTH
    • Change service-type to global-service-type
    • Add example for process
    • Links: add ‘rel’ SHALL be from IANA or codes.wmo…..

Break

WRAP UP

  • Review remaining WNMs
  • Review WTH
  • Review actions
  • Tom showed validation development approach: schemas are developed in YAML and then output to a JSON bundle; JSON schema will be posted to schemas.wmo.int; (AM) how to test it? (TK) the CI will validate all the examples upon CI commit; exact same workflow is there for WNM;

Actions

Next meeting

2023-09-25