# Presentation: 202514

## The 900-Pound Gorilla

- How STORET Affects the Development of Other Data Management Tools

- Gerald Burnette
- HydroGeoLogic, Inc.
- (865) 995-9953
- www.hgl.com

## This Story Begins in an Earlier Time

- The Corps of Engineers contracted for the development of a new surface water quality data management system.

## Design Goals of the New System

- Update the user interface
- Improve performance and data access
- Fix problems with the data model
- Add biological sampling capabilities
- Provide compatibility with GIS
- Enhance graphics and reporting functions

## The DASLER System

- Data Management Interface

- GIS Interface

- Plotting Utilities

## DASLER and STORET:  Worlds Apart?

- “DASLER Is from Mars, STORET Is from Venus”

- (with apologies to John Gray)

- ?

## Connecting DASLER to (Legacy) STORET

- Approximately 1% of DASLER code devoted to connecting to STORET.

- (Text files)

## New STORET is Introduced

- The connection between DASLER and STORET is broken.

## What to Do?

- Meeting of the interested Corps parties held in Nashville.

- Discussion of differences between DASLER data model and STORET data model.

## Program Similarities

- Objectives were the same
- Structures were similar (locations, characteristics, samples, results)
- Common data pool (characteristics, methods, etc.)

## Program Differences

- DASLER

- STORET

- More metadata requirements
- Configuration required
- Station visits and trips
- Explicit procedure references
- Gear configuration information

- Less metadata requirements
- “Pre-configured”
- Sampling events only
- Procedures and gear information tied to collection method field

## Why the Differences?

- To understand why DASLER and STORET are different, you need only look at the target audiences.

## Consensus of the Meeting

- The only option – if connection to STORET is to be re-established – is to modify DASLER.

- Plan developed for altering DASLER to meet new STORET requirements.

- Construction of the new version began in February 2001.

## Changes to DASLER

- Database changes – to enforce some of the same metadata requirements found in STORET
- User interface changes – to capture some of the additional information
- Export routines – to send data to STORET via SIM

## Connection Re-established

- Now, approximately 5% of DASLER code devoted to connecting to STORET.

- (SIM)

## DASLER User Base Expands

## Expanded User Base Produces Unexpected Side Effect

## DASLER-X Reaches Wider Audience

- Approximately 15% of DASLER-X code devoted to connecting to STORET.

- (SIM)

## Wider Audience Requires More Changes

- Addition of project concept with support tables
- Personnel information, including training
- Location and parameter aliases
- Support for continuous monitoring data
- More “special” entries for STORET exports

- As the audience expands, the amount of effort spent making DASLER compatible with STORET increases.

- ?

## A Good Thing or A Bad Thing?

- Good

- More robust data model
- Broader applicability
- Increased client base

- Increased development time
- Requires more support
- Constant need to monitor STORET developments

- ?

- ?

- ?

- Bad

## Conclusions

- STORET has had a major influence on development efforts.

- This influence has a measurable effect on project budget.

- Despite these factors, maintaining compatibility with STORET is a worthwhile goal that has many positive outcomes.