®®

© 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 ECMWF Client

EcCharts on ECMWF

University of Reading USGS server on ECMWF

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

Over several fields

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

OGC®

Roadmap?

• Not ambitious if not more participants• No time constraint• Just feed the twiki with you return of experience here :

http://external.opengis.org/twiki_public/bin/view/MetOceanDWG/MetocWMS_WMS_IE_Retex

Everybody is :