® ® 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 ® Meteo-France ECMWF ECMWF ecCharts Clients Servers 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 NWS on MF KNMI on MF IBL on MF ECMWFS on MF ECMWF on MF DWD on MF UCAR on MF
OGC ® 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) 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 ® 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 http://motherlode.ucar.edu/thredds/idd/models.html 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/MetOce anDWG/MetocWMS_WMS_IE_Retex http://external.opengis.org/twiki_public/bin/view/MetOce anDWG/MetocWMS_WMS_IE_Retex Everybody is :