1 / 17

Formatting Standards Kevin Robbins, Director Southern Regional Climate Center

Workshop on Strategy for Providing Atmospheric Information Panel 2: Interoperability and Compatibility. Formatting Standards Kevin Robbins, Director Southern Regional Climate Center Louisiana State University.

cargan
Download Presentation

Formatting Standards Kevin Robbins, Director Southern Regional Climate Center

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Workshop on Strategy for Providing Atmospheric InformationPanel 2: Interoperability and Compatibility Formatting Standards Kevin Robbins, Director Southern Regional Climate Center Louisiana State University Formatting Standards

  2. Data formatting standards are invaluable in providing interoperability and compatibility to technically complicated systems. The reward offered to an IT manager in selecting a standard is…. ..… the opportunity to choose from an infinite number of competing options! David Wilensky (formerly, SRCC) Formatting Standards

  3. Scope of Discussion • Storage format standards have little or no effect on compatibility between different computer systems • Interoperability and compatibility between computer systems is determined by transmission and transfer format standards Formatting Standards

  4. Benefits of Formatting Standards • Facilitate data exchange • Provide product consistency • Facilitate reusable and maintainable software code by the producer and consumer • Standards are: Open to future improvements yet mindful of past technologies Formatting Standards

  5. METAR SYNOP SHIP BUFR GRIB FITS SHEF SATOB NIDS PILOT TEMP BUOY RAOB SAO PIREP others……… Most Formatting Standards Now Used Are Only Familiar to the Meteorological Community. Formatting Standards

  6. Why Are There So Many Formats? • Format development was incremental • Transmission bandwidth was limited • Receiving devices were primitive • Products were made to be human-readable • Computer processing power was limited • Different products had different requirements • Data formatting standards were unavailable Formatting Standards

  7. Why Consider Change ? • The clientele for weather information has become more diverse • Data formatting should be defined using open standards having broad acceptance • Transmission bandwidth has increased • The need for human-readable products has diminished: Computers are ubiquitous • Sophisticated formatting schemes can handle many different encoding requirements Formatting Standards

  8. Clientele Should Drive Decisions ! • In the past, most information was intended for internal use, international exchange, or (primarily) for the aviation industry • Now, many industries, large and small, are looking for weather information for daily operations and decision-making • Data and data products should be accessible to this broader spectrum of clientele Formatting Standards

  9. NWS (internal needs) NOAA Agencies Other Federal Agencies USDA USFS FAA EPA DOT DOE DOD etc… International Organizations (WMO) Media PCMs Industry Transportation Energy Construction Researchers K-12 and Universities Citizens Clientele Formatting Standards

  10. How Should ClienteleBe Served ? • Through Intermediaries • Media • PCMs • Ad hoc WWW providers • Directly • Push data to clientele (data feed) • Allow client pull (website / FTP / client apps) Formatting Standards

  11. Text and Digital Data netCDF, HDF, etc Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS) GRIB (open source) BUFR (open source) XML with CSS or XSL Graphic Images GIF PNG JPG TIFF others…. Generally volatile Generated on-the-fly Easy to adapt formats to currently accepted standards Broader Clientele Interaction Requires Open Formatting Standards Formatting Standards

  12. Multiple Transfer Standards • Push technologies can rely on a limited number of standards, but may benefit from a variety of unique data feeds tailored to the intended audience • Pull technologies must support a broader range of standards to accommodate the specific requirements of individual requests Formatting Standards

  13. XML ExampleWeather Observation Markup Format (OMF) METAR KMRY 091345 11003KT 8SM BKN004 10/09 A3006 ^M^M RMK A02CIG 003V008 SLP193 T01000094=^M^M <SYN Title=‘Metar’ TStamp=‘950104440’ LatLon= ’36.583, -121.85’ BId=‘724915’ Sname=‘Monterey Peninsula’ Elev=’77’> <SYID>KMRY 091345Z</SYID> <SYCODE>RMK A02 CIG 003V008 SLP193 T01000094</SYCODE> <SYG Wind=‘110, 1.5’ Vis=‘12880’ Ceiling=‘400’ T=’10’ TD=‘9’ AS=‘1018’ Clouds=’66///’> 11003KT 8SM BKN004 10/09 A306</SYG> </SYN> http://zowie.metnet.navy.mil/~spawar/JMV-TNG/XML/OMF-SYNOP.html Formatting Standards

  14. Browser Representation (XML / XSL) Formatting Standards

  15. Impediments to Change • Agency resistance to change • If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it ! • Significant retooling costs • Compliance to international standards for data exchange (WMO) • Constantly evolving standards • Complexity of a modernization effort Formatting Standards

  16. Conclusions • Change should be driven by clientele demands and anticipated needs • Clientele should be fully engaged in the process • Modernization should adhere to accepted formatting standards • Technology is no longer a limiting factor in the deployment of modern data formats • Data formats should be designed within a comprehensive, internally consistent system Formatting Standards

  17. Modernization should be: “..open to future improvements yet mindful of past technologies..” And Finally… Formatting Standards

More Related