1. ® ® © 2011 Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. February/March 2011 TC Meeting Met Ocean DWG : IE Status Report 76th OGC Technical Committee Bonn, Germany Marie-Françoise Voidrot-Martinez March 3, 2011 Sponsored by United Nations Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response - UN-SPIDER

2. ® ® 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, …

3. 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

4. OGC ® Then… 1.Identify the servers available for testings –http://external.opengis.org/twiki_public/bin/view/MetOceanDWG/M etocWMS_Servershttp://external.opengis.org/twiki_public/bin/view/MetOceanDWG/M etocWMS_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

5. 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

6. OGC ® On ECMWF Client EcCharts on ECMWF University of Reading USGS server on ECMWF

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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!

10. 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) ?

11. OGC ® © 2010 Open Geospatial Consortium The validation architecture ECMWF IHM layer Graphic layer Fat Client Data layer Data Server RMDCN Internet OGC Webservices IHM Layer Browser Graphic layer Data layer Server

12. OGC ® © 2010 Open Geospatial Consortium Comparison of location/values Meteo-France Fat client ECMWF WMS

13. OGC ® © 2010 Open Geospatial Consortium Over several fields Meteo-France Fat client ECMWF WMS

14. OGC ® © 2010 Open Geospatial Consortium The validation architecture ECMWF IHM layer Graphic layer Fat Client Data layer Data Server RMDCN Internet OGC Webservices IHM Layer Client Graphic layer Data layer Server

15. 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

16. 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? …

17. 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

18. 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 :