Interoperable Data Formats Technical Session Summary Report

1
Interoperable Data FormatsTechnical
SessionSummary Report

• International Ice Charting Working Group VI
• Ottawa, October 2005
• John Falkingham

2
Action Item 5.6

• Clearly define the objective of developing common
  data base scheme i.e. seamless customer support
  vs ice service interoperability. Outline a
  project plan including goals for the first
  technical workshop on the issue

3
Objectives for Technical Workshop

• Education
• To understand better what we mean by
  interoperable data formats
• Decision
• Where we want to go with interoperable data
  formats are we on the right track?
• What can we achieve within our own organizations
  and what can we achieve together?
• Commitment to Action
• To develop action plans, that we can all commit
  to, for going forward

4
Outline for Technical Workshop

• Education
• Ice in Electronic Chart Systems
• Tim Evangelatos Doug OBrien - Canadian experts
  on ECDIS and IHO under contract to the Canadian
  Hydrographic Service
• Advances in Sea Ice Presentation for ECDIS
• Yuri Scherbakov AARI expert on ECDIS
• Interoperable Data Formats in Production Systems
• Dave Denault CIS expert on Geographic
  Information Systems
• Brian Scarlett ESRI contractor at CIS

5
Outline for Technical Workshop

• Decision
• Plenary discussion
• Breakout Groups
• Operational Ice Information Producers
• Standards Enforcers
• Commitment to Action
• Breakout group reports
• Workshop Report

6
Results

• Agreement from the entire group that
• Developing standards for incorporating ice
  information into Electronic Chart Systems is a
  role that the JCOMM ETSI should play
• With IICWG as its Technical Advisory body
• Now is an appropriate time to be doing this
• We are not at the bleeding edge but are close
  enough to it to be effective
• It may be a lot of work for which resources
  (people) are not easily available but that will
  never change

7
Results (cont)

• Should separate the content from the carrier
• Carrier issues are already resolved by others
• Content model is an essential first step for
  interoperability between ice services and with
  users
• Define how ice information is described in a
  common way by all ice services

8
Results (cont)

• IHO Ice Register (Ice Object Catalogue) is the
  logical starting point for a content model
• Register was developed under ISO standards and
  has a formal home
• ICE Register should reference and be completely
  compatible with the WMO Sea Ice Nomenclature
• SIGRID-3 should be merged into the Register
• ETSI should be the owner of the register and be
  responsible for the control body

9
Results (cont)

• Ice Object Catalogue must incorporate standards
  for display of images
• It is not necessary for ETSI to define the
  portrayal (presentation) standards but it would
  be useful to define a default set
• Existing WMO Symbology and Colour Standards would
  suffice

10
Operational Ice Information Producers Breakout
Group

• Participants
• Klaus Strubing, German Ice Service, BSH
• Keld Hansen, Danish Met Institute
• Thor Jakobsson, Iceland Met Service
• Robert Ringrose, Qinetiq Corp
• Helge Tangen, Norwegian Met Service
• Paul Seymour, National Ice Center
• Ari Seina, Finnish Ice Service
• Barbara OConnell, Canadian Coast Guard
• Brian Scarlett, GIS Technical Expert
• Lina Assad, rapporteur

11
Standards Enforcers Breakout Group

• Participants
• Doug OBren IDON Corp
• Tim Evangelatos Terraquaeous Corp
• Vasily Smalyanitsky AARI, ETSI,
• Yuri Scherbakov AARI
• John Falkingham Canadian Ice Service
• Ian Pilling Qinetiq Corp
• Eric Madsen NOAA
• Dan Fequet Canadian Ice Service
• Mikhail Krasnoperov - WMO

12
Issues/Challenges

• Communications cost too high when accessing data
  over web
• Security model to protect data that needs to be
  protected
• Portrayal of the data format is not the same for
  different clients
• Inter-operability of data and charts
• Standard settings must be established in order to
  enable the exchange
• Technological progress (tap from each others
  skills)

13
Barriers

• Government regulations
• Ownership of data, licensing, management of data
• Resources (people) to do the necessary work

14
Action Plan next 6 months

• Complete final version of the Ice Objects
  Catalogue
• editorial changes
• correct references
• review for consistency with Sea Ice Nomenclature
  and SIGRID-3
• Survey/questionnaire to Ice Services to determine
  common denominator
• What is the current capability for
  inter-operability?

15
Action Plan next 6 months

• Establish formal relationships
• Letter of liaison from JCOMM co-presidents to IHO
  (Technical, CHRIS) (1 March 2006) Done?
• Letter of liaison from JCOMM ETSI chair Vasily
  Smolyanitsky to ISO TSMAD chair, Mike Brown
  (before 7-11 November 2005)
• Letter of liaison from JCOMM co-president to ISO
  Chair to expand existing WMO liaison domain to
  include sea ice (15 May 2006)

16
Action Plan next year

• Standardize the SIGRID3 implementation among ice
  centres
• ISO standard for metadata
• Complete metadata definition for sea ice
• Investigate relations with MarineXML (JCOMM
  ETMDP)
• ISO standard for imagery
• No need to define standards for imagery but must
  define what standards we shall employ at user
  level
• possible solution is to follow IHO
• Presentation content
• Recommend default presentation in isolation
• WMO Nomenclature, Colour standard for Ice Charts

17
Action Plan longer term

• Encoding
• Develop SIGRID-4 in alignment with ISO GML (ISO
  19136)
• S57 will serve in the interim to carry ice
  information in Electronic Ice Systems
• Web Services
• Determine the level of standard web services
  required for interoperability among producers
• Web Mapping Services
• Web Feature Services
• Web Coverage Services

18
In SummaryDid we meet our objectives?

• Education - Accomplished
• We are all at a common level of understanding
• Decision Accomplished
• Agreed that we should progress in a certain
  direction
• Commitment Partially Accomplished
• Relatively detailed action plan drafted we know
  what to do
• Resources to implement this action plan not
  identified we dont yet know how to do it