# Presentation: 157122

## Workshop on Strategy for Providing Atmospheric InformationPanel 2: Interoperability and Compatibility

- Formatting Standards
- Kevin Robbins, Director
- Southern Regional Climate Center
- Louisiana State University

## ..... the opportunity to choose from an infinite number of competing options !

- 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)

## 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

## 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*

## Most Formatting Standards Now Used Are Only Familiar to the Meteorological Community.

- METAR
- SYNOP
- SHIP
- BUFR
- GRIB
- FITS
- SHEF
- SATOB

- NIDS
- PILOT
- TEMP
- BUOY
- RAOB
- SAO
- PIREP
- others.........

## 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

## 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

## 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

## Clientele

- 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

## How Should ClienteleBe Served ?

- Through Intermediaries
- Media
- PCMs
- Ad hoc WWW providers
- Directly
*Push* data to clientele (data feed)
- Allow client *pull* (website / FTP / client apps)

## Broader Clientele Interaction Requires Open Formatting Standards

- _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

## 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

## XML ExampleWeather 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**

## Browser Representation (XML / XSL)

| KMRY |  | Time: 091354Z |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Monterey Peninsula |  | Elevation: 77 |  |
| Latitude | 36.583 | Longitude | -121.85 |
| Wind Dir | 110 | Wind Speed | 1.5 |
| Visibility | 12880 | Ceiling | 400 |
| Temperature | 10 | Dew Point | 9 |
| Altimeter
Setting | 1018 | Ceiling | 66/// |

## 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

## 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

## And Finally...

- 	Modernization should be:
*“**..open to future improvements yet mindful of past technologies..”*