V1, 7/18/05 12 http://marinemetadata.org/ ), a relatively new NSF-funded community based-initiative focusing on metadata standards.  Presently there are SEACOOS personnel that interact with these initiatives on an informal basis, but we need to develop more formal, interactive linkages.  As a first step, we are identifying who among the DMCC is interacting with these outside groups, their primary contacts, and the nature of their interactions.  The DMCC will also suggest additional organizations addressing standards issues that SEACOOS may want to establish formal relationships with.  With this information we can develop a plan at the SEACOOS program level for establishing formal linkages with the major standards initiatives.   The DMCC will also continue to refine and enhance its ongoing data standards activities, e.g., the data dictionary. · The marine science community suffers from a lack of well-defined community processes (policies or traditions) for defining data standards.  This absence has lead to a proliferation of overlapping but incompatible standards – a state of affairs that creates serious barriers to data interoperability.  To achieve the international scope of data interoperability that IOOS requires the community must move towards fewer standards that are more broadly conceived and more widely utilized.  In preference to creating new standards the Committee recommends that SEACOOS become an active participant in the standards bodies that are responsible for emerging community standards.  Specifically, SEACOOS can 1) engage in the (informal) standards processes for netCDF conventions (“CF” and “OTS”) and 2) pursue connections with the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) directly or through proxies to promote standardization of marine data structures for time series, profiles, etc.   With editorial changes the high quality documents that SEACOOS has drafted can morph into guidance documents for regional data providers on the proper use of the broader standards. This is a solid recommendation totally consistent with our current near-term planning. · The SEACOOS Strategic Plan states “the ultimate utility of the regional information system is to enable the creation of products that address scientific and societal issues …”   The regional IM should, indeed, enable  the creation of these products, but should not necessarily be the authoritative creator of the products. In a mature RCOOS this role will be shared by various entities, including private sector information providers that target the needs of specific classes of users. It needs to distinguish between the roles of the value-added information provider vs. regional data provider. The distinction between information presentations and value-added information products more suitable for the private sector is not always clear.  The SEACOOS community, including particularly the E&E WG and the Executive Committee, needs to address this issue and develop a strategy and guidelines to aid in the identification of information product development.  This issue is also one that will