FDSN / miniSEED3-TechnicalEvaluation

Discussion and evaluation of miniSEED 3
5 stars 1 forks source link

Technical Evaluation for the next generation of miniSEED

Final Report

The final report is available here: https://github.com/FDSN/miniSEED3-TechnicalEvaluation/blob/master/report.md

It consists of a short summary of every issue and the final tally of the votes. This repository additionally sparked a few discussion with broader implications about potential changes to the FDSN identifiers:



This GitHub repository, and especially its issues, will be used for step 2 of the design of the next generation miniSEED format. The three stages, previously identified of its design are:

The goal of step 2 is to evaluate the requirements agreed on in stage 1 and

  1. confirm that each requirement is technically feasible and
  2. discuss technical approaches for each requirement, voting to identify the consensus for preference of approach.

Multiple possible technical solutions for some requirements are expected. The outcome of this stage will be a clear yes/no for acccepting each requirement as technically feasible and identification of a consensus approach for each. Combining the results of this stage to form full implementation specification proposals for step 3 may be done by any interested parties.

References to discussions and so far produced documents:

Procedure and Timeline

  1. Discussion will start right now and will be moderated by @krischer. Anyone is invited to join. A separate issue is available for each discussion point.

  2. Discussion on each issue is expected to be finished by January 29th and voting will end Feburary 2st. The votes will be tallied up by @krischer after February 2nd. Please register to vote (and state which institution you represent) in #1. You can vote either by reacting with :+1: (YES) or :-1: (NO) to the head post in an issue or [please use comments - many issues have been broken down in more than one question] by explicitly stating your support for/contra in a comment in an issue. A transparent vote summary for each issue (including institutions) will be provided by @krischer after voting has concluded. @krischer will not vote but break a tie, if necessary.

Technical Evaluation

The discussion will be broken up in a number of issues:

Administrative Issues:

Basic Requirements:

Additional Requirements:

Issues Discussing the Expansion and Conventions of the FDSN Identifiers

Assuming the FDSN identifiers are used (discuss in #4) how should they be expanded and what conventions should be applied? Limitations in the current identifiers are becoming a pressing issues and are a (or the) main motivator for discussing a new data format in the first place.

These are not being voted on right now as they are a broader issue.