IICWG DICS Action 6'1'1

1
IICWG DICSAction 6.1.1

• DC 6.1.1 Interoperable Data Formats
• Clearly define the objective of developing common
  data base i.e. seamless customer support vs. ice
  service interoperability
• Complete final version of the Ice Objects
  Catalogue
• editorial changes correct references
• review for consistency w/ Sea Ice Nomenclature /
  SIGRID-3
• Responsible P. Seymour / Vasily Smolianitsky.
• Target Date April, 2006
• Status
• Editorial changes First draft of
  recommendations
• Correct references First draft of addition of
  references
• Compare w/ Nomenclature First draft completed
• Compare w/ SIGRID By default, some progress made

2
IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1Background

• Important milestone met with Dr. Paul Birkel in
  May
• Authored a critique of the catalog that was
  presented during the interoperability session
  during last meeting
• Access to an expert / Access to the actual IHO
  database
• This access is absolutely necessary
• Steady progress since this meeting in May, 2006
• Dr. Birkel is working with the NGA to write
  similar databases for all product specifications

3
IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1 Database Description 1

• Ice Catalog looks like a spreadsheet
• It is actually a relational database
• There is a method to the apparent madness
• The Ice Objects Catalog divided into three
  sections

4
IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1 Database Description 2

• The higher level are the Features - Main objects
• Sea Ice, Land Ice
• Ice Openings, Icebergs and Ice Fracture etc.
• The middle level are the Attributes - Descriptors
• Concentration Total, Floe Sizes
• Iceberg Shape, Fracture Type etc.
• The lower level are the Attribute Listed Values
• These are enumerators for the Attributes.
• Represent ice codes used to describe ice eggs
• List of Iceberg Shapes
• Codes for Ice Stages
• Fracture types Crack, Very Small Fracture

5
IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1 Summary of Progress 1

• Completed
• Reviewed Features in the catalogue
• Notes on comparison to
• Nomenclature
• Each other
• Recommendations on supporting attributes
• These notes are contained in additional fields in
  the spreadsheet and in the Feature Report

6
IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1 Summary of Progress 2

• Completed
• Reviewed Attributes in the catalogue
• Made notes on how they compare to
• Nomenclature
• How they relate to each other
• These notes are contained in additional fields in
  the spreadsheet and in the Attribute Report

7
IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1 Summary of Progress 3

• Completed
• Reviewed Attribute Listed Values
• Made notes on how they compare to
• Nomenclature
• Symbology or ice codes
• Other sources such as the CIS MANICE.

8
IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1 Remaining Work 1

• Reverse process to compare the nomenclature and
  symbology to the objects
• Smooth draft documents for consistency
• The project has to be completed
• Definitions and descriptions harmonized with
• Nomenclature
• Ice codes
• On another level, nomenclature and ice codes
• Updated with the goal of facilitating electronic
  charting
• Make ice objects fit that review

9
IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1 Conclusions 1

• At highest level, three Features that are
  overarching
• Sea Ice, Land Ice (is Ice of Land Origin), Lake
  Ice
• One inconsistency is that there is no River Ice
• Many of other Features are subsets of these
  three
• List of Ice Objects Features
• Floeberg, Ice Advisory Area
• Ice Dynamics Ice Movement
• Ice Ridge Ice Topology
• Ice Fracture Ice Lead Ice Opening Ice
  Polynya
• Ice Line (represents the ice extent or ice edge)
• Ice Route, Ice/Snow Thickness, Iceberg, Iceberg
  Area
• Lake Ice Land Ice Sea Ice

10
IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1 Conclusions 2

• Examples of overlap between openings Features
• Ice Openings
• Ice Fracture
• Ice Polynya
• Ice Lead
• Examples of overlap between topology Features
• Ice Topology
• Ice Ridge
• Examples of overlap between drift
• Ice Dynamics
• Ice Movement

11
IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1 Conclusions 3

• The enumerators should be in a logical format and
  the units should be spelled out
• Kilometers, metres or centemetres not cms or ms
• Nautical miles not knots
• Measurements should not overlap or leave gaps.
• Example
• 4 Very Small Fracture 1 - 50 metres
• 5 Small Fracture 50 - 200 metres
• 6 Medium Fracture 200 - 500 metres
• Should probably read gt 50 to lt 200 etc
• Descriptions plain language not "ice" language
• We know what a "floe" is
• Definitions should refer to it as a piece of ice
  (floe)

12
IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1 Conclusions 4

• Some definitions do not match the nomenclature
• Ice Object Feature Land Ice
• Nomenclature Ice of Land Origin
• Ice Object Feature Ice Line
• Nomenclature Ice Edge
• There are some features that are not ice terms at
  all such as Ice Advisory Area or Ice Route (from
  NATO).
• a. Will we adopt those definitions?
• There could be sea ice nomenclature terms that
  should have an Ice Objects Feature. One example
  is River Ice.

13
Recommendations Where To Go From Here?

• 1. Use the Ice Object Catalog in its current form
• Little work but a lot of inconsistencies
• Not recommended
• 2. Make Ice Objects conform to definitions in the
  nomenclature and symbology and then come up with
  recommended changes to the nomenclature
• Moderate work but more consistency
• Makes a difference in the short run
• 3. Redo the nomenclature and coding for ice
  charting and then harmonize the Ice Objects with
  electronic charting in mind
• Very Large amount of work but maximum
  usefulness/consistency
• There is a large risk that we will modify the ice
  code and then we may not be compatible with our
  legacy data

14
Questions and Comments
Larson B Feb., 2002
15
Appendix A Examples of Duplication 1

• Feature Ice Fracture
• Attribute Fracture Type
• Code Name
• 1 Crack
• 2 Tide Crack
• 3 Flaw Valid
• 4 Very Small Fracture
• 5 Small Fracture Valid
• 6 Medium Fracture
• 7 Large Fracture
• 8 Undetermined or Unknown
• There is also a feature called
• Feature Ice Opening
• Attribute Ice Opening Type
• Code Name
• 1 Crack
• 2 Tide Crack
• 3 Flaw

• Attribute Listed Value (or Enumeration) for
  Fracture Type
• 1 Crack
• 2 Tide Crack
• 3 Flaw
• 4 Very Small Fracture 1 - 50 metres.
• Small Fracture 50 - 200 metres.
• 6 Medium Fracture 200 - 500 metres.
• 7 Large Fracture Greater than 500 metres.
• 8 Undetermined or Unknown
• With the following enumerations
• 1 Crack
• 2 Tide Crack
• 3 Flaw
• 4 Very Small Fracture lt 50 metres in length
• 5 Small Fracture 50 - 200 metres in length
• 6 Medium Fracture 200 - 500 metres in length
• Large Fracture gt 500 metres in length

16
Appendix A Examples of Duplication 2

• Feature Ice Polynya
• Attribute 1 Ice Polynya Type
• Attribute 2 Ice Polynya Status

• Code Name
• 1 Polynya
• 2 Shore Polynya
• 3 Flaw Polynya
• 1 Polynya An unspecified type of polynya.
• 2 Shore Polynya A polynya between ice and the
  coast or between ice and an ice
  front.
• 3 Flaw Polynya A polynya between ice fast
  ice.
• Code Name
• 1 Non-Recurring Polynya (This is our general
  or non-specific polynya)
• 2 Recurring Polynya A polynya which recurs
  in the same position every year.