Global Geodetic Observing System (GGOS):
Fifteenth Meeting of the Steering Committee
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Saturday, April 18, 2009, 13:00 to 19:00
Minutes (Version 0.1 of 2009- 6- 7 17:15)
Participants:
Harald Schuh,
University Vienna
(Substitute Delegate, IVS)
Markku Poutanen,
Finish Geodetic Institute
(Delegate, Commission 2)
Bernd Richter,
BKG
(Chair, GGOS WG Data and Infrastructure)
Wolfgang Schwegmann,
BKG
(Webportal Manager)
Werner Gurtner,
AIUB, Bern
(Invited Participant)
Bente Lilja Bye,
NMA
(Chair, GGOS WG User Linkage and Outreach)
Richard Gross,
JPL
(Chair, Science Panel)
John Dow,
ESA
(Delegate, IGS)
Hermann Drewes,
DGFI
(Chair WG on Convensions)
Michael Pearlman,
Smithonian
(Executive Committee; Chair, GGOS WG Network and Communications)
Frank Webb,
JPL
(Invited Participant)
Steve Fisher,
JPL
(Guest)
Mark Tamisiea,
POL
(Substitute, PSMSL)
Urs Hugentobler,
Tech. University Munich
(Guest)
Chopo Ma,
GSFC
(Executive Committee; Delegate, IERS)
Ruth Neilan,
JPL
(Vice-Chair, GGOS Steering Committee)
Hans-Peter Plag,
NBMG
(Vice-chair, GGOS Steering Committee)
Markus Rothacher,
GFZ
(Chair, GGOS Steering Committee)
Zuheir Altamimi,
IGN
(Delegate, Commission 1)
Harald Schuh,
University Vienna
(Substitute Delegate, IVS)
Susanna Zerbini,
University of Bologna
(Executive Committee)
Agenda:
1
(13:00 - 13:05) Welcome and Discussion of Agenda
2
(13:05 - 13:10) Minutes of SC14
The draft minutes of SC14 are available as
html
and
pdf
.
These minutes will not be discussed in any detail.
The participants are asked to identify necessary changes and/or corrections.
3
(13:10 - 13:30) Action Item Status
The list of action items from previous SC meetings is available
as
html
and
pdf
.
4
(13:30 - 13:50) Brief Reports from the GGOS Chairs
5
(13:50 - 14:50) Reports from Bureaus and Science Panel
The reports will include:
-
Schwegmann et al.: Status of the GGOS Portal implementation
-
Hugentobler et al.: Status of the Bureau for Standards and Conventions
-
Pearlman et al.: Status of the Bureau for Networks and Communications
-
Gross: GGOS Science Panel Report
Written reports are available at the public
reports
page.
6
(14:50 - 15:05) GGOS Strategy and Implementation Plan
7
(15:05 - 15:30) The next generation network
8
(15:30 - 15:45) GGOS Coordination Office
9
(16:00 - 17:00) Reports from WGs
The reports will include:
-
Shum et al.: Report of the Working Group on Satellite Missions
-
Richter/Noll: Report of the Working Group on Data Infrastructure
-
Plag et al.: Report on the status of the Working Group on Outreach and User Linkage
-
Plag et al.: Report of the Working Group on GEO relations
Written reports from most WGS are available at the public
reports
page.
10
(17:00 - 17:20) GGOS and GEO
A proposal for a focusing of the activities will be made and discussed.
11
(17:20 - 17:40) Progress towards an ISO standard for ITRS
Claude Boucher
will report on the work of the ad hoc Working Group and the position paper will be discussed.
12
(17:40 - 18:00) GGOS Publication Series
A proposal for a GGOS publication series has be prepared by
Richard Gross
and is available on the internal page.
13
(18:00 - 18:40) Next SC Meetings, Workshops, and Symposia Sessions
A detailed Meeting Plan for 2009 and 2010 is available as
draft
. The
following meetings will be discussed in more details:
-
Gross et al.: Preparations of the GGOS 2009 Science Workshop
-
Plag et al.: Preparation of the GGOS/IGCP 565 Workshop on future gravity satellite missions
-
Rothacher, Gross, Richter, Plag: Preparation of 2009 UAV and 2009 GGOS Retreat
-
Plag et al.: GGOS Science Workshop 2010
14
(18:40 - 18:55) Any other business
15
(18:55 - 19:00) Summary of Action Items
Notes:
1
(13:00 - 13:05) Welcome and Discussion of Agenda
MR: MR will speak to Gruenreich+Rummel meeting.
2
(13:05 - 13:10) Minutes of SC14
The draft minutes of SC14 were available as
html
and
pdf
.
These minutes were not be discussed in any detail. The participants had been asked to identify necessary
changes and/or corrections prior to the meeting. No changes were requested and the minutes were accepted as they are.
3
(13:10 - 13:30) Action Item Status
The list of action items from previous SC meetings including reports on the status
was made available as
html
and
pdf
.
The following additional comments/reports were made:
Concerning
Action Item
GGOS-SC14-2:
Markus Rothacher
will follow up that Ken Hudnut will be asked to represent GGOS together with
John LaBrecque
in the
JB GIS at the Ad hoc Committee on Risk and Disaster Management
and IUGG's GeoRisk.
Responsible:
Markus Rothacher,
Deadline:
2009-01-15,
Markus Rothacher
reported that Ken Hudnut was not able to take this responsibility. Therefore,
John LaBrecque
was the only representative of GGOS to this Committee. It was suggested to ask Kurt Feigl, who could be a candidate. It was reiter
Concerning
Action Item
GGOS-SC14-5:
Bernd Richter
will report back to Prof. Gruenreich and ensure that the meeting of major
agencies involved in funding of global geodetic infrastructure takes place early in 2009.
Responsible:
Bernd Richter,
Deadline:
2009-01-31,
Bernd Richter
stated that he would report on the status later during the meeting.
With respect to
Action Item
GGOS-R2008-10:
Rene Forsberg
will finalize the Call for Proposals for the Central Bureau of the IGFS together with others, and he will
ensure that this CfP is widely published in the geodetic community
Responsible:
Rene Forsberg,
Deadline:
2008-06-30,
Markus Rothacher
reported that a plan would be shown in his report.
4
(13:30 - 13:50) Brief Reports from the GGOS Chairs
Markus Rothacher
summarized the work of the GGOS EC since SC14 (see his presentation
pdf
). He reviewed the implementation of the GGOS organization and
reported on the establishment of the two new Bureaus. He mentioned that the Bureau for Satellite Missions and the Coordination
Office were still missing. Reviewing the future structure of GGOS, he emphasized the future need for GGOS Centers.
Markus Rothacher
described the Bureau for Satellite and Space missions and the Coordination Office as being under construction,
and referred to the report of the Working Group on Satellite Missions to be given later and the scheduled
discussion of the Coordination Office, respectively.
Markus Rothacher
informed the participants that the new ToR were accepted by the IAG Executive Committee during the meeting in
December 2008. He summarized the major changes with respect to the previous ToR (see his presentation for details).
He also reported that the GGOS 2020 Book was in print with expected publication date before the IAG meeting in Buenos Aires.
For the strategy document, a draft structure had been developed and would be discussed later during the meeting.
He presented a list of publications, which included a Community White Paper (CWP) for the OceanObs09 conference in
September 2009. This CWP was led by
C.K. Shum.
Hans-Peter Plag
added that another CWP related to geodesy was addressing the decision
support for coastal zone management with respect to sea level rise.
He briefly reviewed the meeting schedule and concluded his report by summarizing the next major steps (see his presentation
for details).
5
(13:50 - 14:50) Reports from Bureaus and Science Panel
Written reports are available at the public
reports
page.
The reports included:
-
Wolfgang Schwegmann
presented a report on the status of the GGOS Portal implementation
(for details see
pdf
).
After the presentation, considerable discussion took place.
Ruth Neilan
asked how the work on the portal is
linked to the IAG Services.
Wolfgang Schwegmann
responded that there was currently no link. To the question how
easily such links could be established, he responded that this needs to be worked out. The portal currently
sits on a secure server with no external access. There were several comments requesting that
other directions, which would provide external access would have to be considered.
Zuheir Altamimi
asked what the IAG Services will have to do in order to link to the Portal.
Wolfgang Schwegmann
responded that
they would have to provide meta data.
Bernd Richter
added that a proposal to be discussed with the Services would be
prepared.
Hans-Peter Plag
identified two major problems: (1) the fact that the portal would be built with proprietary software would limit the
transportability of the portal to other host, if needed; and (2) the lack of external content management would considerably
complicate and slow down any update of the web pages.
Claude Boucher
asked the general question what this web portal about is about and requested a discussion of contents.
Would it only be for the Services or also for smaller regional activities, such as EUREF? He identified the
need for a document that describes the anticipated contents of the web portal.
Ruth Neilan
requested that the Portal design should be discussed with GGOS and the GGOS SC. She suggested that a
working group be created with the charter to develop the design.
Hans-Peter Plag
voiced the opinion that such a WG already
exists in the form of the Working Group on Data and Information Systems. This led to the Action Item:
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-1:
Bernd Richter
and
Carey Noll
as co-chairs of the WG on Data and Information Systems will ensure that a proposal for the design
of the GGOS Web Portal is developed and submitted to the GGOS SC for comments and endorsement.
Responsible:
Bernd Richter,
Carey Noll,
Deadline:
2009-05-31.
Markus Rothacher
pointed out that the meta data will help to get access to the products of the Services,
but that a lot of time would be needed to develop this. He also identified the need to have the
meta data discussed by a WG. This led to:
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-2:
Bernd Richter
and
Carey Noll
as co-chairs of the WG on Data and Information Systems will ensure that the WG develops
a concept for the metadata formats and contents related to the Web Portal.
Responsible:
Bernd Richter,
Carey Noll,
Deadline:
2009-07-31.
Claude Boucher
suggested that a first step could be to develop an inventory of data sources in IAG. This led to:
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-3:
Bernd Richter
and
Carey Noll
as co-chairs of the WG on Data and Information Systems will ensure that the WG establishes
an inventory of data sources in the IAG community.
Responsible:
Bernd Richter,
Carey Noll,
Deadline:
2009-08-30.
-
Urs Hugentobler
presented a report on the status of the Bureau for Standards and Conventions (BSC). For details see his
presentation available as
pdf
. His report included a brief review of
the history, a list of the membership, and a summary of the objectives. He emphasized that there will be two
main focuses: (1) standards and conventions within the frame of GGOS, and (2) propagation of these standards to the
outside. He then reviewed past activities and presented the planned activities.
After the presentation, it was discussed whether the Working Group on Conventions, Modeling and Analysis should be dissolved.
Ruth Neilan
formulated the motion that the WG should be dissolved and the BSC should consider to establish a task
force to include modeling and other relevant topics. This was modified into a motion to dissolve the WG, which was
accepted unanimously.
Bernd Richter
pointed out that IAG has a responsibility for ISO/TC211, but that the committee was active yet. He
emphasized the importance of this committee to become active.
Hermann Drewes
explained that starting the work of the committee was
in the process and that
Urs Hugentobler
would push this further.
Zuheir Altamimi
noted that the IERS Convention were not mentioned.
Hermann Drewes
responded that all Services were mentioned and
invited to contribute.
Zuheir Altamimi
commented that just welcoming them would not be enough, and he saw the necessity for the BSC
to approach the Services.
Harald Schuh
supported
Zuheir Altamimi
in the respect that he saw the need to be clarified the differences
between BSC output and the IERS conventions in order to avoid confusion.
Claude Boucher
requested that the added value of the BSC would be shown, which was not clear to him. However,
to get an inventory of the situation and to show the level of consistency would be a very important role.
Hermann Drewes
added that the gravity field community would need to be involved.
Markus Rothacher
saw the need for the IERS Convention product center to meet with the BSC.
Chopo Ma
requested that the
presentation should make these issues clear in order to avoid the impression that the BSC would replace the
IERS Conventions.
-
Michael Pearlman
presented a report on the status of the Bureau for Networks and Communications, which is
available as
pdf
. For details see this report.
-
Richard Gross
reported on the activities of the GGOS Science Panel. The presentation is available as
pdf
. For the details, see this report.
After the presentation,
Claude Boucher
emphasized the need to have the GGOS Science Panel involved in the GEO
Science and Technology Committee.
Ruth Neilan
suggested that the Science Panel should review the strategy document.
Hans-Peter Plag
added that a review of
GGOS leaflets by the Science Panel would be very helpful.
The Science Panel membership was reviewed. Roderick van der Wal and Frederique Remy were suggested as potential
candidates for new members. With respect to hydrology,
Hans-Peter Plag
stated that he talked to Hubert Savinije, who was ready to
step down. A potential replacements could be Taikan Oki, Japan.
Hans-Peter Plag
proposed to find representatives who are active in GEO CoPs, which was supported by
Claude Boucher.
Harald Schuh
criticized that the Science Panel is too US-biased and requested that Chinese members should
be added to the Science Panel. In summary, the following Action Item emerged:
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-4:
Richard Gross
will review the Science Panel membership and solicite new members to represent hydrology an glaciology.
Responsible:
Richard Gross,
Deadline:
2009-08-30.
Michael Pearlman
proposed that GGOS hold a meeting in China to get more support in that region. This was supported by
Science Workshop a good starting point.
6
(14:50 - 15:05) GGOS Strategy and Implementation Plan
Markus Rothacher
presented the draft strategy document. His presentation is available as
pdf
. The draft structure is available as
doc
. In the presentation,
Markus Rothacher
addressed the issues of the concept
of the document, layout options, and the next steps.
Concerning the layout and publication,
Ruth Neilan
stated that JPL would be a possible option, since JPL has
good people with experience in publishing and a understanding of science and geodesy. Moreover,
costs and copyright would not be main issues.
Hermann Drewes
also stated that the publication would not be too expensive, and DGFI could be able to pay for it.
Markus Rothacher
showed potential layouts for title pages (not available here), all of which used a combination of several pictures.
He then discussed the contents as outlined in the
draft
.
Bernd Richter
asked why
Part III (
Who will benefit? GGOS and Modern Society
) was not first in the structure.
Hans-Peter Plag
supported
Bernd Richter
and stated that the proposed structure and contents were too much aligned to the GGOS 2020 Book.
Bernd Richter
added that the proposal was too technical, with too many details and jargon.
Ruth Neilan
also agreed and requested a much shorter, high level document with a language on the level of
eighth-grade English. For her, the executive summary would be the most important part.
Both
Harald Schuh
and
Susanna Zerbini
also suggested to start with GGOS and what it does and could do.
Hans-Peter Plag
wanted to see a reference to the Societal Benefit Areas of GEO and a demonstration of
the added value of GGOS.
Claude Boucher
asked the question of what we (GGOS) want to do with the document. Would the main purpose be to explain GGOS?
He indicated that one goal should be to show that geodesy has real added value. Moreover, the document should
demonstrate the need for the new organization, and the need for funds.
Markus Rothacher
summarized the discussion by stating that there were different ideas about the sequence of contents, and that
it would be difficult to bring these together.
Hans-Peter Plag
and
Ruth Neilan
recommended that the authors look at the WMO brochures,
which they deemed very good examples for layout and structure.
Bernd Richter
stated that WMO, ESA, and other such
organizations are well know, while GGOS needs to be introduced as a body.
Susanna Zerbini
saw the need to get help from communication experts, and
Hans-Peter Plag
added that some universities might be able to help
as they have schools of journalism often focusing on communication of complex contents to society.
Claude Boucher
supported the statement made by
Bernd Richter
and emphasized the difference between existing well established
organizations and GGOS.
Michael Pearlman
voiced the opinion that the main message was clear: geodesy is essential in
understanding global change.
Ruth Neilan
analyzed that the proposed document was not a strategy document, and rather an
introduction to GGOS. She claimed that GGOS needs a strategy process, so that a common,
shared understanding can be developed.
Hans-Peter Plag
classified the proposed document more as a promotion document, and
Claude Boucher
concluded that several documents were needed with different writing styles for different groups.
As a result of the discussion, a number of Action Items were agreed:
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-5:
All SC Members will send comments on the Draft Strategy Document content to
Markus Rothacher.
Responsible:
Steering Committee,
Deadline:
2009-06-30.
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-6:
Markus Rothacher
will ensure that the Draft Strategy Document undergoes a comprehensive review in the Steering Committee, the
Science Panel and the larger IAG Community.
Responsible:
Markus Rothacher,
Deadline:
2009-08-30.
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-7:
All SC Members will send suitable figures for the Strategy Document to
Markus Rothacher.
Responsible:
Steering Committee,
Deadline:
2009-06-30.
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-8:
Markus Rothacher
will work with
Ruth Neilan
and others to identify people with expertice in layout and communication to
help with the Strategy document.
Responsible:
Markus Rothacher,
Deadline:
2009-06-30.
7
(15:05 - 15:30) The next generation network
Frank Webb
introduced the topic of the next generation geodetic network. He explained that
NASA had realized that the network is degrading. The Decadal survey, which came out recently,
directed NASA towards several satellite missions, which all depend on the quality of the geodetic
reference frames.
John LaBrecque
was working within NASA to improve the global geodetic network. In 2008,
a five-year plan to built core stations was developed. However, this plan did not make it into the
budget plan. Therefore, NASA was now looking for guidance to develop a new plan in 2010 for a
start in 2011. The group at NASA was just starting on the effort to write the proposal for 2010.
They needed support in drafting the argument why the core network is needed and what would
not be possible if this core network was not being developed.
Hans-Peter Plag
commented that a line of argument could be to start with the GGOS 2020 recommendations, which were part of the
work of the GEO Work Plan Task
DA-09-02c
. This could be worked into a Call for
Proposals with the proposals submitted to a joint review of GEO and GGOS. It would be important to channel
this through the GEO Science and Technology Committee to get full GEO support.
Zuheir Altamimi
mentioned the report and asked whether there would be duplication.
Frank Webb
responded that there was no duplication, but
that the proposal would have to refer to the report.
Ruth Neilan
pointed out that NASA has never done anything
except for cooperation with other agencies. She also noted that the initiative ties directly into the
meeting proposed by Gruenreich and Rummel.
Richard Gross
proposed to create a project within GGOS, which would
focus on building the network. This GGOS Project could then link to GEO.
Michael Pearlman
commented that if GGOS was to coordinates this, then
there would be the technical aspect of what the stations should look like, and he identified the need
that somebody would work on this.
Since the Gruenreich and Rummel meeting was mentioned,
Bernd Richter
reminded that the discussion about the geodetic
infrastructure started in during SC14 in San Francisco. There, a meeting was proposed for Spring 2009,
the discussion of the meeting showed that a concept is needed. The plan is now to have a
meeting in autumn. He continued to state that a draft concept paper would be distributed to GGOS and IAG soon.
This resulted into Action Item:
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-9:
Bernd Richter
will ensure that the draft document detailing the objectives and concepts of the Gruenreich/Rummel conferences
is distributed to the GGOS SC.
Responsible:
Bernd Richter,
Deadline:
2009-06-30.
Bente Lilja Bye
commented that a push from GEO for the renewal of the geodetic network would help.
Claude Boucher
pointed out that GEO could complement the traditional ways of funding.
Markus Rothacher
stated that many activities were already going on to built new core stations, and it owuld
be important to bring all these activities under one umbrella.
Hans-Peter Plag
had the opinion that the GGOS BNC should lead this GGOS Project, and
Ruth Neilan
proposed that the BNC comes back to the SC with a project proposal detailing the plan and the potential
participants.
Hans-Peter Plag
seconded this proposal, which was then accepted by the SC.
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-10:
Michael Pearlman
as the director of the BNC will develop a proposal for a GGOS project related to the implementation of the
Global Geodetic Core Network (GGCN) and provide this to the GGOS SC.
Responsible:
Michael Pearlman,
Deadline:
2009-08-15.
8
(15:30 - 15:45) GGOS Coordination Office
MR gave an overview of the status concerning the Coordination Office. His overview is available as
pdf
. A key point was that a proposal by GFZ to host the CO
was in preparation. However, this would only be a core CO with additional support needed from others.
With respect to potential funding from other sources,
Zuheir Altamimi
stated that he was not sure EuroGeographics
would contribute.
Hans-Peter Plag
reported concerns
John LaBrecque
had expressed with respect to a GGOS Coordination Office.
John LaBrecque
was more in
favor of a Secretariat, and this was supported by
Ruth Neilan.
9
(16:00 - 17:00) Reports from WGs
For the report of the Working Group on Satellite Missions, the participants were referred to the written
report available as
pdf
. For the Working Group on Data and
Information Systems,
Bernd Richter
reported that no activities had taken place since the last report.
Hans-Peter Plag
presented a report on the outreach activities of GGOS, which is available as
pdf
. He showed a list of published papers introducing GGOS,
reviewed the statistics of access to the GGOS web page, and informed about the outreach through science blogs and internet
TV, which was done by
Bente Lilja Bye.
Hans-Peter Plag
also presented the report of the Working Group on GEO relations (see
pdf
for details. In the discussion, the need to distribute the work load on
several shoulders was emphasized.
10
(17:00 - 17:20) GGOS and GEO
Hans-Peter Plag
reviewed and analyzed the contributions of GGOS to GEO and presented a proposal for
a more focused approach (see the
pdf
for more details).
11
(17:20 - 17:40) Progress towards an ISO standard for ITRS
Claude Boucher
reported on the work of the ad hoc Working Group. The presentation is available as
pdf
). He pointed out that the governance issue would be
very important and would need careful consideration to ensure proper funding.
Addressing the question of which Technical Committee (TC) would be appropriate, he pointed out that the
existing ones are community oriented, and a new one might be needed to serve the purpose of an ITRS standard.
With respect to the position paper,
Hans-Peter Plag
asked whether this can be made available for the
SC meeting in Buenos Aires.
Claude Boucher
considered this as a realistic target.
John Dow
pointed out that the WG activities were very complementary to what ICG was doing.
There, the nominations of experts would be under way.
12
(17:40 - 18:00) GGOS Publication Series
Richard Gross
presented a proposal for a GGOS publication series (see the
pdf
for
more details). After the presentation,
Markus Rothacher
asked the participants to express their general feeling about the proposal.
Michael Pearlman
informed that ILRS had decided to go for biannual reports.
Hans-Peter Plag
recommended to consider as first choice to produce a newsletter and then consider annual or biannual reports as
a second (later) option.
Bernd Richter
commented that annual reports are difficult and considered a newsletter a better choice.
13
(18:00 - 18:40) Next SC Meetings, Workshops, and Symposia Sessions
A detailed Meeting Plan for 2009 and 2010 had been made available prior to the meeting.
(see
php
for an updated version).
Richard Gross
provided some
more information on the GGOS 2009 Science Workshop (see the
workshop page
.
Hans-Peter Plag
reported on the preparation of the GGOS/IGCP 565 Workshop on future gravity satellite missions.
Markus Rothacher
gave details about the 2009 UAV (see the
pdf
for details).
14
(18:40 - 18:55) Any other business
There was no other business.
15
(18:55 - 19:00) Summary of Action Items
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-1:
Bernd Richter
and
Carey Noll
as co-chairs of the WG on Data and Information Systems will ensure that a proposal for the design
of the GGOS Web Portal is developed and submitted to the GGOS SC for comments and endorsement.
Responsible:
Bernd Richter,
Carey Noll,
Deadline:
2009-05-31.
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-2:
Bernd Richter
and
Carey Noll
as co-chairs of the WG on Data and Information Systems will ensure that the WG develops
a concept for the metadata formats and contents related to the Web Portal.
Responsible:
Bernd Richter,
Carey Noll,
Deadline:
2009-07-31.
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-3:
Bernd Richter
and
Carey Noll
as co-chairs of the WG on Data and Information Systems will ensure that the WG establishes
an inventory of data sources in the IAG community.
Responsible:
Bernd Richter,
Carey Noll,
Deadline:
2009-08-30.
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-4:
Richard Gross
will review the Science Panel membership and solicite new members to represent hydrology an glaciology.
Responsible:
Richard Gross,
Deadline:
2009-08-30.
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-5:
All SC Members will send comments on the Draft Strategy Document content to
Markus Rothacher.
Responsible:
Steering Committee,
Deadline:
2009-06-30.
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-6:
Markus Rothacher
will ensure that the Draft Strategy Document undergoes a comprehensive review in the Steering Committee, the
Science Panel and the larger IAG Community.
Responsible:
Markus Rothacher,
Deadline:
2009-08-30.
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-7:
All SC Members will send suitable figures for the Strategy Document to
Markus Rothacher.
Responsible:
Steering Committee,
Deadline:
2009-06-30.
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-8:
Markus Rothacher
will work with
Ruth Neilan
and others to identify people with expertice in layout and communication to
help with the Strategy document.
Responsible:
Markus Rothacher,
Deadline:
2009-06-30.
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-9:
Bernd Richter
will ensure that the draft document detailing the objectives and concepts of the Gruenreich/Rummel conferences
is distributed to the GGOS SC.
Responsible:
Bernd Richter,
Deadline:
2009-06-30.
Action Item
GGOS-SC15-10:
Michael Pearlman
as the director of the BNC will develop a proposal for a GGOS project related to the implementation of the
Global Geodetic Core Network (GGCN) and provide this to the GGOS SC.
Responsible:
Michael Pearlman,
Deadline:
2009-08-15.
Minutes prepared by
Hans-Peter Plag
In case of problems, mail to info@iag-ggos.org.
|