Issues raised by UK Space Agency

[alexgleith]

UK suggestions for CEOS Interoperability Handbook

Vocabulary

• Integration with CF Conventions
  Consider aligning vocabulary efforts with established standards such as the CF (Climate and Forecast) conventions. This has been explored in the development of the GeoZarr standard and is particularly relevant given CF’s widespread adoption in UK EO science.
• Support for Domain/Project-Specific Vocabularies
  SEM#4 could be expanded to address scalable support for domain-specific vocabularies. For example, STAC extensions offer a flexible mechanism to incorporate project-specific keywords and metadata.
• Governance of Terminology
  THES#8 raises the issue of controversial terms. A recommendation could be added to establish community governance structures for vocabulary management. The CF conventions provide a successful model, offering a forum for consensus-building and issue resolution.

Architecture

• Analysis vs. Archiving Tensions
  There is an opportunity to address the tension between formats optimized for analysis (e.g., Zarr) and those suitable for long-term archiving. This is a recurring issue in ARD (Analysis Ready Data) discussions.
• Data Chunking and Access Optimization
  Recommend including a section on data chunking strategies tailored to access patterns—e.g., spatial slicing vs. temporal slicing—to optimize performance and usability.
• Cross-Domain Interoperability
  Increasingly, EO data is used alongside data from other domains (e.g., GIS, climate projections). It would be valuable to explore scenarios and architectural considerations for such integrations, especially where standards diverge.
• UK-Specific Archival Context
  Unlike many CEOS members, UK institutions often act as distributors or manage downstream products rather than primary archives. This distinction affects documentation needs, particularly around lineage and provenance, which are not well addressed in current CEOS frameworks.

Metadata and Documentation

• CEOS-ARD Framework
  The metadata recommendations are generally sound, but it would be prudent to confirm with JNCC whether they are satisfied with the CEOS-ARD framework.
• Data Appraisal Procedure Link
  The link to the data appraisal procedure is incorrect and should be updated.
• Missing References
  The document references the “WGISS Data Collections Management Practices White Paper” but does not provide a link. This should be corrected for completeness and accessibility.
• Documentation Needs for Downstream Products
  UK’s role in managing downstream EO products necessitates more robust documentation practices, especially for lineage and provenance. This gap is not well addressed in CEOS, which primarily reflects the needs of primary archives.

Some potential areas for UK involvement/alignment

• Continued document input and review, offline and as part of WGISS meetings
• Suggestion to run some demonstration projects to test the IHB recommendations in practice - ESA have also suggested this approach
• How can the UK participate? EODH, CEDA, future data architecture, ESA projects and UK missions etc.
• Align any applicable UK owned and managed satellites and or data sets to the CEOS IHB recommendations
• Are there any UK satellites/datasets that can be added to the CEOS Interoperability system or federated EO data sets?
• UK EODH – Could it be CEOS compliant or partially compliant? e.g., Implement STAC, ZARR, run on cloud etc...

[alexgleith]

more robust documentation practices, especially for lineage and provenance

This could be something we need to look at specifically. There's not a good way to handle lineage/provenance at a Granule/Item level.