®®
© 2011 Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc.© 2011 Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc.
February/March 2011 TC MeetingFebruary/March 2011 TC MeetingMet Ocean DWG : IE Status ReportMet Ocean DWG : IE Status Report
76th OGC Technical Committee
Bonn, Germany
Marie-Françoise Voidrot-Martinez
March 3, 2011
Sponsored byUnited Nations Platform for Space-based Information for
Disaster Management and Emergency Response - UN-SPIDER
®®
Acknowlegments
• Special thanks to the active contributors– Frederic Bachevillier (Meteo-France)
– Adrian Custer (Geomatys)
– Olivier Gaillard (Meteo-France)
– Stephan Siemen (ECMWF)
– John Schattel (NOAA/NWS)
– Sylvie Thepaut (ECMWF)
– …
Thank you to server and clients providers : Carbon Project, ECMWF, Geomatys, HR Wallingford, IBL, KNMI, Meteo-France, NOAA/NWS, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Plymouth Marine Laboratory (UK), University of Reading (UK), UCAR,uDig Community, …
OGC®
First tries….
• Beginning 2010 : – Call for Volunteers– Use cases definition – Impression of lack of time to drive the I.E.
• Mid 2010 : EGOWS– Basic plugfest without specific use case
• Decision to keep on unformally to let people set infrastrutures, to encourage contributions, help identify what is feasable …
Interesting feebacks even without real use case
Enough to identify short term works to do
OGC®
Then…Then…
1. Identify the servers available for testings – http://external.opengis.org/twiki_public/bin/view/MetOceanDWG/
MetocWMS_Servers
2. Identify General Purpose Clients and Met Ocean Clients to begin the two type of testings identified into the first Use cases :
Copyright © 2011 Open Geospatial Consortium
Met Ocean Servers
Met Ocean Clients
General Purpose clients
OGC®
• Meteo-France
• ECMWF
• ECMWF ecCharts
ClientsServers
• IBL Software Engineering
• University of Reading
• NOAA/NWS Radar_Warnings
• NOAA/NWS Flood_Outlook
• NOAA/NWS Convective_Outlook
• Meteo-France
• ECMWF
• Geomatys
• Ucar GFS
• uDIG 1.1
• Gaia 3.2.1
• KNMI
• University of Reading’s USGS
Met Ocean I.Es Progress Reports Update : 03/02/2011
http://external.opengis.org/twiki_public/bin/view/MetOceanDWG/MetocWMS_WMS_IE_Retex
• DWD climate server
OGC®
On Météo France Client (all requests in cylindrical projection)
UCAR on MF
UCAR on MF
NWS on MF
KNMI on MF
IBL on MF
IBL on MFIBL on MF
ECMWFS on MF
ECMWF on MF
DWD on MF
UCAR on MF
OGC®
Feedbacks (1)Feedbacks (1)
• Mostly basic connection testings• No main problems • Response time irregular and sometimes Timeouts but no
investigation of their origin• Each server presents different data (=> impact on the
scenario for future I.Es)• Name of the layers are not always explicit (=> Global
Recommandation)• Different styles for the same data on different servers• Default style not explicit
OGC®
Feedbacks (2)Feedbacks (2)
• A wish to have a reactive gauge– Have to test the GetFeatureInfo – Get the correspondance between Numerical value and physical
value somehow
Try by defining a formula into the « Abstract » field :
NOT STANDARD AT ALL!
OGC®
A need of deeper testings
• Are you sure that
- To have got the right projection ?- To have got the right time ?- …..
Are you sure that
“What You Request Is What You Get”
(WYRIWYG)
?
OGC®
© 2010 Open Geospatial Consortium
The validation architecture
ECMWF
IHM layer
Graphic layer
Fat Client
Data layer
Data Server
RMDCN
Internet
OGC Webservices
IHM LayerBrowser
Graphic layer
Data layer
Server
OGC®
© 2010 Open Geospatial Consortium
Comparison of location/values
Meteo-France Fat client
ECMWF WMS
OGC®
© 2010 Open Geospatial Consortium
The validation architecture
ECMWF
IHM layer
Graphic layer
Fat Client
Data layer
Data Server
RMDCN
Internet
OGC Webservices
IHM LayerClient
Graphic layer
Data layer
Server
OGC®
Second level of feeback
• The difference of styles can be – A plus for the comparison as the user can identify at a glance the
origin of the data– A minus for further analysis because the user might feel more
confortable having the same colomaps
a need to define shared basic styles for the basic parameters? Somehow made by WMO
OGC®
Next Steps
• These testings cannot be a priority for our institutes• The use case of the I.E. has to be « based on the offer »• We have to define a validation procedure for the requests
– For instance the Ucar server : http://motherlode.ucar.edu/thredds/idd/models.html provides WMS and clients to visualise them that can be used as the reference for the projection and data request
• Make further testings with different projections• Define some metrics? • …
OGC®
Actions
• Keep on testing • More combinations : more servers, more clients
• More issues : animations, getFeatureInfo…
• Deeper testings : more projections, …
• Define new use cases « offer oriented »
• Define basic styles for basic parameters
• A small plugfest on the 9th of June in Meteo-France, Toulouse