CEOS WGISS, Annapolis MD Richard Ullman, NASA GSFC

NASA’s Process of Community Endorsement Standards

or: How the NASA Standards Process seeks to “Cross the Chasm”

CEOS WGISS, Annapolis MDRichard Ullman, NASA GSFC

Motivation

One initiative after another has stressed the need for interoperability standards.Many standards initiatives, both formal and grass roots have put forward specifications or demonstrated various ways to enable access to data. NASA, or NASA funded projects are often in the forefront of these activities.However, NASA participation in a standards development activity does not imply that NASA projects endorse the results of that activity.

• There is an adoption gap between the research data systems activities and the mission data systems activities.

Network EffectFrom Wikipedia, 2006

•The network effect is a characteristic that causes a good or service to have a value to a potential customer dependent on the number of customers already owning that good or using that service.•One consequence of a network effect is that the purchase of a good by one individual indirectly benefits others who own the good - for example by purchasing a telephone a person makes other telephones more useful. This type of side-effect in a transaction is known as an externality in economics, and externalities arising from network effects are known as network externalities.

Crossing the Chasm DiagramGeoffrey Moore, 1999

modified after Everett Rodgers, 1962

100%

0%

Ado

ptio

n

Time

Decision Criteria

Innovators/Early Adopters• Enthusiastic for technology.• Vision of what a technology might do.• Ability to cope with a high degree of uncertainty.

Pragmatists (Early majority)• Pragmatists do not look to the specification or the marketing

claims, but rather look to members of their pragmatic cohort for trusted opinion.

• Need both references and relationship• Reference from Early Adopter won’t do.

• Deliberate before adopting a new idea.

Crossing the Chasm DiagramThe NASA Chasm

Innovative PragmaticResearch/Demonstration Mission Reliability/Stability

100%

0%

Ado

ptio

n

Time

The NASA SPG Request For Comment Process

Modeled after example of Internet “IETF RFC”.Tailored for responsiveness to NASA.Proposed standards are documented as specifications according to SPG guidelines and submitted by practitioners within the NASA community.The Standards Process Group forms a Technical Working Group (TWG) to coordinate evaluation.

• What does “implementation” of this specification mean in the context of NASA Earth Science Data Systems?

• What constitutes successful “operational” experience?The community is invited by means of email announcement to comment on the specification and particularly to address questions formulated by the TWG.The TWG also identifies key stakeholders that are likely to have particular experience with the technology and solicits their opinion.The TWG reports to the SPG and the SPG makes recommendations for final status of the RFC.

Proposed Standard

Community Core

Draft Standard

Community Core

Standard

Community Core

RFC

Community Core

Review ofOperation

Recommendation

SPGEvaluate Implementations and Community Response

TWGEvaluate Implementations

Stakeholders

Review of Implementation

Recommendation

SPGEvaluate Implementations and Community Response

TWGEvaluate Implementations

Stakeholders

Initial ScreeningInitial review of the RFCProvide RFC submission support Form TWG; set schedule

The Three Step Standards Process

Responsibilities

Community Leader• Identify someone in their community who will document

standard according to SPG guidelines.• Work with the community to get an extended review of the

proposed standard.

SPG• Assign “RFC editor” to advise on RFC document.• Publish and publicize RFC• Assign “TWG”, technical working group to organize community

review and evaluate responses.• Recommend action to NASA HQ.

Kinds of Practices Suitable for SPG

Any data system practice that increases interoperability or interuse of data within a community or among communities.

• Standard - Documents Operational Use• Tech Note - Builds community awareness; sometimes a

precursor to a standardExamples:

• Describe science content (e.g. Content standard for a level-2 precipitation product, surface reflectance product content)

• Describe interface (e.g. Data Access Protocol, Web Map Server)

• Describe metadata (e.g. DIF, ECHO)• Describe File Format (e.g. HDF, GeoTIFF)• Best Practices (e.g. File naming conventions, fast search

algorithm for polar data)

Successful RFCs will have

Well documented standard specificationAt least two implementers.Demonstrated operational benefit.Strong community leadership to support and use standard

• Leadership in generating the RFC.• Community willing/able to review

Potential for “impact” and spillover to other communities

Crossing the Chasm?

A specification or practice is recommended as a standard … Only after practices have been shown to:

• (1) have demonstrated implementation and • (2) benefit to operation will they be endorsed for preferential

use.Ideas come from innovators and are tempered by the significant demands of writing an RFC.Review process permits adoption only after “significant” community endorsement.Pragmatic criteria of usability and the RFC process can provide the leadership references that pragmatists seek.