IOOS DMAC Standards Process and Lessons Learned Anne Ball DMAC Steering Team Ocean.US

IOOS DMAC Standards Process and Lessons Learned

Anne Ball

DMAC Steering Team

Ocean.US

Topics

• Brief overview– IOOS– DMAC

• DMAC standards process

• Lessons learned

• Links to more information

• Discussion

IOOS DMAC Overview

Integrated Ocean Observing System

IOOS

Tracking, predicting, managing, and adapting to changes in our coastal and ocean environment


SEE

Safety Economy Environment

Oceans Coasts Great Lakes


• Safety– Earlier and better predictions of severe

weather– Search and rescue– Protect water quality– Homeland security


• Economy– Optimized shipping routes based on improved

forecasts– More accurate, longer-term forecasts for agriculture– Better planning for coastal construction and zoning– Potential sources for medicines and new technologies– Alternative energy sources– Improvements in offshore drilling practices


• Environment– More timely and accurate predictions for oil

spills and other pollutants– Reduced vessel groundings– Better ecological protection– Fisheries– Protection and restoration of marine

ecosystems


• Three subsystems– Observations and Data Telemetry– Data Management and Communications

(DMAC)– Modeling and Analysis


• 11 Regional Associations

• Federal agencies

• National programs

Data Management and Communications

• DMAC Goal– design the system that efficiently and

effectively links observations to applications by enabling rapid access to diverse data from multiple sources as needed


• Infrastructure– Data discovery, access, transfer, metadata,

archive– identify the technologies, formats, and

protocols that support an infrastructure needed to meet its goal.

– must interact with regional, national, and international systems.


• Usability– Quality assurance, quality control, information

requirements– Data must be accompanied by the information that

supports its proper use and sound results when combined with additional data.

– This information may vary between different types of observations and collection methods.

– DMAC will adopt quality assurance, quality control, and content requirements identified by expert communities and ensure this information is carried within the DMAC infrastructure.

DMAC: One of three IOOS subsystems

ObservingSubsystem

Satellites

Aircraft

Fixed Platforms

Ships

Drifters & Floats

AUVs

Metadata standards

Data discovery

Data transport

Online browse

Data archival

Safe & EfficientMaritime Operations

Homeland Security

Natural Hazards

Climate Change

Public Health

Ecosystem Health

Living MarineResources

DMACSubsystem

Modeling & AnalysisSubsystem

DMAC Implementation

Team approach

• Steering Team

• Expert Teams

• Caucuses• Working groups• Interagency Oversight Working Group

DMAC Steering Team

• Representatives from government, industry, academia, public, and non-profits

• Coordinate and oversee DMAC standards evolution

• Identify and provide recommendations on gaps

• Conduct process in an open, objective, and balanced manner

DMAC Teams

• Expert teams– Archive– Metadata and data discovery– Transport and Access

• Working group– Systems engineering

• Address key issues as defined in DMAC plan• Review and make recommendations on

standards

DMAC Caucuses

• Outreach and community engagement– International– Private sector– Education

• K-12• Professional development

– Modeling– Regional

Interagency Coordination

Interagency Oversight Working Group (IOWG)

• Representatives of federal agencies

• Oversight of DMAC implementation within agencies

Roles

• Teams:– Review standards– Make recommendations– Identify gaps

• Organizations– Implement standards and recommendations– Fill-in gaps

Standards and standard process

Standards

Standards are key to the success of DMAC

• Identify standards needed• Coordinate with other standards processes• DMAC standards mantra:

– Adopt– Adapt– Develop only as a last resort

DMAC Standards Process

• Identifying existing standards is a first step

• Often need to “standardize” the standard– Ex. Use FGDC metadata – not good enough

to describe waves, so must develop a waves profile

• Data providers may be required to use different standards– Crosswalks, interoperability is critical


Three status levels for standards:• Submitted

– Has no standing within IOOS.

• Proposed– Has status within IOOS and can be used provisionally

by IOOS information system managers for evaluation purposes.

• Recommended– All IOOS data systems should consider supporting

these guidelines wherever applicable


Originator Submits a Standard

Internal Review

DMAC Chair –Applicable?

Gatekeeper –Complete?

Start

Expert ReviewDMAC ST

Polls

Public Comments

Community Conducts

Tests/Pilots

DMAC ST Polls

End

“SUBMITTED STATUS”

“RECOMMENDED STATUS”

“PROPOSEDSTATUS”

Website: ioosdmac.fedworx.org

Submission Entry


• Entry fields:– Name– Type (new, existing, adaption)– Data mgmt function (metadata, transport, …)– Abstract– Purpose– Technical description– Statutory requirement or international agreement?


• Entry fields (continued)– Relationships, dependencies, conflicts– Current usage– Justification– References– Acronyms– Contact information– Supporting parties/members


• Semi annual review schedule:– Expert review

• 1 month• September and March

– Steering team review• 1 month• October and April• Steering team initial poll (on-line)• Recommendations written

– Steering team final poll• May and November meetings


• Chair drafts recommendations based on polling and distribute to Steering Team

• Steering Team discusses recommendations at semi-annual meeting– Try to reach consensus– If consensus is not possible (per Terms of Reference):

• Vote is carried by 75% of those members voting “approve” or “disapprove.”

• Quorum consists of 60% of members.

• Support of multiple strategies may be the most prudent approach. As long as the consideration of multiple options does not violate the spirit of IOOS interoperability, the IOOS-ST may move forward without consensus.


• Steering team may decide:– Move forward (“submitted” to “proposed”)– Request additions or changes– Table and revisit in next round– Reject

Lessons Learned

First round - November 2007

Eight standards submitted:

• IOOS Vocabulary Version 1

• Required and Recommended Vocabularies for IOOS Metadata

• Metadata Catalog Services

• Data Access Protocol – DAP 2.0 (transport)

• Real Time Quality Control Tests for In Situ Ocean Surface Waves

• Quality Control Standards for Real-Time, In Situ Currents Measured by Teledyne RD Instruments

• High Frequency Radar Surface Currents

• Standards Package for the Representation and Transport of Gridded Data: netCDF+CF+OPeNDAP+aggregation

First round

Four moved to “proposed”:

• IOOS Vocabulary Version 1 • Metadata Catalog Services • Data Access Protocol – DAP 2.0 (transport) • Standards Package for the Representation and Transport of

Gridded Data: netCDF+CF+OPeNDAP+aggregation

First round

Four tabled:

• Required and Recommended Vocabularies for IOOS Metadata

• Real Time Quality Control Tests for In Situ Ocean Surface Waves

• Quality Control Standards for Real-Time, In Situ Currents Measured by Teledyne RD Instruments

• High Frequency Radar Surface Currents

First round

• Tabled submissions:– Real Time Quality Control Tests for In Situ Ocean

Surface Waves – Quality Control Standards for Real-Time, In Situ

Currents Measured by Teledyne RD Instruments – High Frequency Radar Surface Currents

• Should DMAC be involved in QA/QC?• If so, how?

First round

Tabled submission:• Required and Recommended Vocabularies for IOOS

Metadata

• Adopt multiple vocabularies?• Use technology/ontologies to map multiple vocabularies?

First round

• Findings– Wide variety of “standards” submitted– No clear definition of “standards” vs “best practices”– How do we handle QA/QC standards?– Need better instructions and/or help for submitters

Additional thoughts

• May need to better define what we’re looking for

• May need to focus more on data/metadata content

May 2008

• Addressed tabled submissions– Additional fields– Tried to refine definitions of fields– Tried to define “standards” vs “best practices”

QA/QC

• “Lessons Learned” discussion:– ST lacks technical expertise to confidently evaluate

QA/QC– Better criteria needed

• To guide ST in evaluation• To assist Originators in preparing “Work Packages”

– Draw on expertise of QA/QC-experienced organizations

• As Originators• During Expert review

– Devote more effort (time) to submission ‘Work Packages’ at front-end

QA/QC

• Is QA/QC a DMAC issue?– Regardless, DMAC must deal with QA/QC to move

forward– Develop supplemental criteria for reviewing QA/QC

submissions

QA/QC Applicability

• Does the submission:– Address an IOOS data type or parameter?– Significant to multiple applications or users?– If specific to a particular instrument, can approach be

extended to similar instruments?– Would it benefit IOOS if implemented more widely?

QA/QC

• Originating organization– Does Originator have recognized expertise in the

topic area?– Will the standard (including, if applicable, all

components of the submission) be maintained over time by a recognized organization?

• Supporting organizations– Are recognized organizations or programs supporting

the adoption of this as a standard?

More information

DMAC Documents

DMAC Plan

•Detailed plans for implementing DMAC •Created with input from federal and state governments, academia, non-profits, and private industry

http://dmac.ocean.us

DMAC Documents

Guide for IOOS Data Providers

• Draft of the IOOS Data Policy

• Guidelines for data and metadata interoperability standards and best practices

http://dmac.ocean.us

DMAC Standards Website

• Submit standards

• Provide feedback on standards (public comments)

Discussion