eric delory [email protected] european seas observatory network haga clic para modificar el estilo de...

Eric Delory [email protected]

European Seas Observatory Network

Haga clic para modificar el estilo de subtítulo del patrón

19/04/23

GEO SIF Meeting – Washington DC – November 2009



Outline

• ESONET short introduction– History and status– Spatial distribution– Partnership– Objectives

• SDI/Sensor Registry– Objectives & Workplan– ESR on the ESONET & GEOSS SDI map– Implementation and standards– On-going collaborations– Maintenance

• Lessons learned• ESONET/GEOSS website and forum

19/04/23 2




• Short Introduction to ESONET

19/04/23 3




ESONET History

• Geostar 1 & 2 (1995-2001)• Antares, Nemo, Nestor• ASSEM 2002-2004 (FP5)• ORION-Geostar-3 (2002-2005 FP5)• ESONET CA (2002-2006) FP5• ESONIM FP6 (2004-2007) Implementation Business model

(http://www.oceanlab.abdn.ac.uk/esonim/reports.php)• SN1 (2005, FP6)• Nearest (2006-2009, FP6)• ESONET NoE (Mar. 2007, FP6) and EMSO (FP7)




ESONET NoE

• European Commission FP6 label to address the fragmentation of European Research to strengthen excellence on a research topic

• Launched 1st March 2007, for 4 years• Budget:

- EU contribution: 7 Meuros - Overall cost: 70 Meuros




ESONET NoE Budget distribution




Federation of Regional Networks




Arctic

East Sicily

Azores

Black Sea

Porcupine

Ligurian Sea

Hellenic Sea

Norwegian margin

Gulf of Cadiz

Kosterfjord

Marmara

Northern Seas




ESONET Partners

• 50 partners: research centres, universities, industrials and SMEs

• 14 countries: Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and UK.

• 300 scientists & engineers

• For further information and partner contacts:• http://www.esonet-emso.org/esonet-noe/governance/

partners.htm




ESONET Scientific Topics

SEABED• Earthquakes, submarine slides• Tsunamis, benthic storms• Turbidity currents• Hydrothermal vents, cold seeps• Pollution, bio-diversity changes• Anthropogenic impacts on deep ecosystemsWATER COLUMN• Studied through conventional oceanographic campaigns &

autonomous mooring




ESONET Objectives

• Lasting integration of European research on deep sea multidisciplinary observatories

• Establishing Seafloor infrastructures (platforms for instruments)

• Production of a practical plan for long term monitoring of the ocean margin environment and security around Europe as part of GMES with capability in: geophysics, chemistry, biochemistry, oceanography, biology and fisheries.




ESONET today

• Mar. 2007: kick off meeting• Jun. 2007: Demonstration Missions First call• Sept. 2007 : All Regions Workshop & end of Demonstration

Missions First call• Dec. 2007 : selection of Dem. Missions proposals for 1-2 year

missions• Jan. 2008: Training workshop (Bremen) & kick off for EMSO

(FP7)• Feb. 2008: Best practice Meeting (Bremen)• September 2009: 2nd Best Practice Meeting (Brest) and All

regions workshop (Paris)




ESONET NoE Workpackages

• 1/ Networking M. Cannat (CNRS)• 2/ Standardization & interoperability C. Waldmann (KDM)• 3/ Scientific objectives and obs. design C. Berndt (NOCS)• 4/ Demonstration Missions L. Beranzoli (INGV)• 5/ Implementation strategies M. Gillooly (IMI)• 6/ Socio economics users J.M. Miranda (Lisbon

univ.)• 7/ Education and outreach L. Thomsen (KDM)• 8/ Activities Management R. Person (IFREMER)• 9/Data Management R. Hüber (KDM)

Coordination: Roland Person, Ingrid Puillat




ESONET WP2 Interoperability and Standardization

• Sensor interoperability• QA/QC• Underwater intervention• GEOSS (http://sites.google.com/site/esonetgeoss/ )




WP2 closer…

• Work Package Description• Review about existing standardisation as well as systems engineering schemes.• Review about subsea infrastructure interfaces (Cabled like ANTARES, SN1, Mobile ROV, AUV,

and relocatable).• Evaluation of practicability of existing standardisation concepts with involvement of

European SMEs (Link to WP6).• Organisation of a Best Practice workshop, used as training sessions for ESONET partners and

associated SMEs (Link to all WPs).• Detailed definition of a first implementation phase.• Specifications for the demonstration cruises (Link to WP 4).• Demonstration of the concept during field trials, using existing observatories/infrastructures

and where possible in cooperation with international partners (MBARI, NEPTUNE, ARENA) (Link to WP3 and WP4 continued after month 18.




• Sensor Registry

19/04/23 17




19/04/23 18

Observatory

Observatory

Observatory

ESONET clearinghouse

ESONET portal (catalogue, data products,)

Sensor Registry

Coastal Station Main Station

2nd nodes

1st node

RAW data

Instruments

Std Interface: data and services

Standard encoding

Manual/Automatic sensor metadata registration

INTERN

ET

ESONET Common Infrastructure and DM interoperability hotspots

Standard interface

Future Broadband data products ?






19/04/23 19

Populate Feature Matrix Select

Create permanent Instrument

Unique Identifier

Amend

Standard selected

Adapt registration template prototypePossibly Harmonise with other WG

surveying initiatives

Plan life-cycle of metadata collection

Test interoperability

Registration test with one

observatory

Update registration prototype

Propose use case scenario

D1

D2 D3

D4

Shortlist and Evaluation of

Metadata standards

Publish instrument registration

Define temporary InstrumentIdentifier

ESR Implementation Workflow




GEOSS CSR

ESONET Sensor Registry

IEEE 1451 Network Capable Processor with web services

SensorMLSensorML

Serial Communication

Sensor + A/D + TEDS

Sensor + A/D + SPS interface , other standards (CANBus, etc.) interface

IEEE1451 STIM IEEE1451 STIM

Internet

SensorMLSensorMLSensorML

SensorMLSensorMLO&M

UsersData presentation and application layer

Sensor +A/D

TEDS + TIM

Ocean instruments and dataontologies

SensorML O&M

Ocean Observatory Owners

SWE Services and Catalog

20

Sensor + A/D + propietary data

metadata format ,protoco

l, etc.

Other




Registration interface

19/04/23 21




Maintenance

• Asynchronous connection to smart sensors• Synchronous polling to SWE services• Manual update through registration interface• Smart sensor self-registration• Adding sensor components and history

DMC Meeting, Bremen 19/04/23

ESONET Sensor registry• <sml:output name="pressureMeasurement">• <swe:Quantity definition="urn:ogc:def:property:OGC:pressure">• <swe:uom code="Pa"/>• <swe:valueMeasurePressure/>• </swe:Quantity>• </sml:output>• </sml:OutputList>• </sml:outputs>• <sml:parameters>• <sml:ParameterList>• <sml:parameter name="calibration">• <swe:DataRecord definition="urn:ogc:def:property:linearCalibration">• <swe:field name="dynamicRangePressure">• <swe:QuantityRange definition="urn:ogc:def:property:dynamicRange">• • <swe:uom code="Pa"/>• <swe:value/>• </swe:QuantityRange>• </swe:field>• <swe:field name="gainPressure">• <swe:Quantity definition="urn:ogc:def:property:gain">• <swe:valueGainPressure/>• </swe:Quantity>• </swe:field>• <swe:field name="offsetPressure">• <swe:Quantity definition="urn:ogc:def:property:offset">• <swe:valueOffsetPressure/>• </swe:Quantity>• </swe:field>• </swe:DataRecord>• </sml:parameter>• <sml:parameter name="accuracy">• <swe:Quantity definition="urn:ogc:def:property:OGC:absoluteAccuracy">




Shortlisted standards: IEEE1451 and SensorML




IEEE1451 to SML Mapping & Harmonizing

19/04/23

Mapping IEEE 1451 MetaIdTEDS to SensorML Identification

IEEE 1451 TIM Meta ID TEDS

XML instance (root: < MetaIdentificationTEDSDataBlock …>)

XML instance(root: <sml:member> <sml:System>)

SensorML Identification

TIM ID (UID type) <UUID> <sml:identification> <sml:IdentifierList> <sml:identifier name="UID"> <sml:Term definition="urn:ogc:def:identifier:OGC:uuid">

Device UUID

Group Name <GroupName> <sml:identification> <sml:IdentifierList> <sml:identifier name="Long Name"> <sml:Term definition="urn:ogc:def:identifier:OGC:longName">Or <sml:identifier name="shortName"> <sml:Term definition="urn:ogc:def:property:OGC::shortName">

Device Name

Product Description <ProductDescription> <sml:documentation> or <gml:description>

Device Description

Manufacturer ID <ManufacturerId> <sml:identifier name="Manufacturer Name"> <sml:Term definition="urn:ogc:def:identifier:OGC:manufacturerName">

Device Manufacturer Name

Model No. <ModelNo> <sml:identifier name="Model Number"> <sml:Term definition="urn:ogc:def:identifier:OGC:modelNumber">

Device Manufacturer Model

Serial No. <SerialNo> <sml:identifier name="Serial Number"> <sml:Term definition="urn:ogc:def:identifier:OGC:serialNumber">

Device Manufacturer Serial Number

Version Code <VersionCode> -Date Code <DateCode> -Number Of Channel Grouping

<NumOfChannelGrouping> <gml:description > Number Of Components

Mapping IEEE 1451 Transducer Channel ID TEDS to SensorML Field

[o1]What is “uom”?




Ontology resources

• urn:ogc:def:[]:[]::[]• http://mmisw.org/ont/oidemo2008/channelLabel/[]• http://vocab.ndg.nerc.ac.uk/client/vocabServer.jsp • Mapping tools:http://marinemetadata.org/

19/04/23 26




A short demo

ESONET and MBARI IEEE 1451 servers and TIMs:

• UPC: Technical University of Catalonia, Spain (1CTD)• Bremen University, Germany

( 1 CTD)• Kiel University, Germany • (1 CTD, 2 weather stations)• MBARI (CTD, Fluorometer)

19/04/23




World initiative to advance standards for advancing interoperability of ocean observing systems.

Ocean Science Interoperability Experiment

19/04/23




19/04/23




Lessons learned




Lessons learned (1-general/organisation)

• Organization: harmonization success in a highly heterogenous distributed system depends on a combination of bottom-up and top-down approach

• Interoperability still seems a secondary function of an observatory

• Contact persons for interoperability do not exist




Lessons learned (2-general/technical)

• XML data overhead is to be avoided in low-bandwidth channels

• Agreement on common practice and use of controlled vocabularies for phenomena, units, time, position, features, contacts, metadata in general.

• Guarantee of maintenance by SDOs is sometimes lacking




Lessons learned (3-Sensor networks and web)

• SWE standards are not always applicable or appropriate (e.g. real-time high-bandwidth data)

• Translating to SWE should be done at a guaranteed high-bandwidth node and higher OSI layers

• SensorML is a powerful but complex standard• Profiling SensorML when

– “Simple” sensors (i.e. no complex processes) are the rule– Global interoperability is desired

• Need for open sensor-specific templates• SWE & IEEE1451 integration is not mature – tools and agreements

needed. Standard compliance tests are under development• Both are new and fast-evolving standards, implying misuse and

sustainable compatibility issues




Lessons learned (4-Sensor networks and web)

• Sensor encoding and service deployment Toolkits are available but examples are still needed for adoption (Application-specific Best practices)

• No exhaustive registry for URNs leaves ambiguity gaps




Acknowledgements

• Eric Delory, dBscale & Canary Islands Oceanic Platform, Spain

• Robert Hüber, University Bremen, Germany• Anne Holford, University of Aberdeen, UK• Antoni Manuel, Technical University of Catalonia, Spain• Joaquin del Rio, Technical University of Catalonia, Spain• Cécile Robin, IFREMER, France• Christoph Waldmann, University Bremen, Bremen, Germany

19/04/23 35

eric delory [email protected] european seas observatory network haga clic para modificar el estilo de...

Documents