IICWG DICSAction 6.1.1

• DC 6.1.1: Interoperable Data Formats• Clearly define the objective of developing common data base

i.e. seamless customer support vs. ice service interoperability:• Complete final version of the Ice Objects Catalogue

– editorial changes correct references– review for consistency w/ Sea Ice Nomenclature / SIGRID-3

• Responsible: P. Seymour / Vasily Smolianitsky.• Target Date: April, 2006

• Status: • Editorial changes: First draft of recommendations• Correct references: First draft of addition of

references• Compare w/ Nomenclature: First draft completed• Compare w/ SIGRID: By default, some progress made

IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1Background

• Important milestone: met with Dr. Paul Birkel in May

• Authored a critique of the catalog that was presented during the interoperability session during last meeting

• Access to an expert / Access to the actual IHO database

• This access is absolutely necessary

• Steady progress since this meeting in May, 2006

• Dr. Birkel is working with the NGA to write similar databases for all product specifications

IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1 Database Description 1

• Ice Catalog looks like a spreadsheet

• It is actually a relational database

• There is a method to the apparent madness

• The Ice Objects Catalog divided into three sections:

IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1 Database Description 2

• The higher level are the Features - Main objects• Sea Ice, Land Ice• Ice Openings, Icebergs and Ice Fracture etc.

• The middle level are the Attributes - Descriptors• Concentration Total, Floe Sizes• Iceberg Shape, Fracture Type etc.

• The lower level are the Attribute Listed Values• These are enumerators for the Attributes.

– Represent ice codes used to describe ice eggs• List of Iceberg Shapes• Codes for Ice Stages• Fracture types: Crack, Very Small Fracture

IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1Summary of Progress 1

• Completed:

• Reviewed Features in the catalogue

– Notes on comparison to:• Nomenclature• Each other

– Recommendations on supporting attributes

– These notes are contained in additional fields in the spreadsheet and in the Feature Report

IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1Summary of Progress 2

• Completed:

• Reviewed Attributes in the catalogue

• Made notes on how they compare to:– Nomenclature– How they relate to each other

• These notes are contained in additional fields in the spreadsheet and in the Attribute Report

IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1Summary of Progress 3

• Completed:

• Reviewed Attribute Listed Values

• Made notes on how they compare to:– Nomenclature– Symbology or ice codes– Other sources such as the CIS MANICE.

IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1Remaining Work 1

• Reverse process to compare the nomenclature and symbology to the objects

• Smooth draft documents for consistency

• The project has to be completed– Definitions and descriptions harmonized with

• Nomenclature• Ice codes

• On another level, nomenclature and ice codes– Updated with the goal of facilitating electronic

charting – Make ice objects fit that review

IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1Conclusions 1

• At highest level, three Features that are overarching:– Sea Ice, Land Ice (is Ice of Land Origin), Lake Ice– One inconsistency is that there is no River Ice

• Many of other Features are subsets of these three:• List of Ice Objects Features:

• Floeberg, Ice Advisory Area• Ice Dynamics Ice Movement• Ice Ridge Ice Topology• Ice Fracture Ice Lead Ice Opening Ice Polynya• Ice Line (represents the ice extent or ice edge)• Ice Route, Ice/Snow Thickness, Iceberg, Iceberg Area• Lake Ice Land Ice Sea Ice

IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1Conclusions 2

• Examples of overlap between openings Features– Ice Openings*– Ice Fracture*– Ice Polynya*– Ice Lead*

• Examples of overlap between topology Features– Ice Topology**– Ice Ridge**

• Examples of overlap between drift– Ice Dynamics***– Ice Movement***

IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1Conclusions 3

• The enumerators should be in a logical format and the units should be spelled out…– Kilometers, metres or centemetres not cms or ms– Nautical miles not knots

• Measurements should not overlap or leave gaps.• Example:

– 4 Very Small Fracture 1 - 50 metres– 5 Small Fracture 50 - 200 metres– 6 Medium Fracture 200 - 500 metres– Should probably read > 50 to < = 200 etc

• Descriptions: plain language not "ice" language– We know what a "floe" is– Definitions should refer to it as a piece of ice (floe)

IICWG DICS Action 6.1.1Conclusions 4

• Some definitions do not match the nomenclature• Ice Object Feature Land Ice• Nomenclature Ice of Land Origin

• Ice Object Feature Ice Line• Nomenclature Ice Edge

• There are some features that are not ice terms at all such as Ice Advisory Area or Ice Route (from NATO).

• a. Will we adopt those definitions?

• There could be sea ice nomenclature terms that should have an Ice Objects Feature. One example is River Ice.

RecommendationsWhere To Go From Here?

• 1. Use the Ice Object Catalog in its current form– Little work but a lot of inconsistencies– Not recommended

• 2. Make Ice Objects conform to definitions in the nomenclature and symbology and then come up with recommended changes to the nomenclature– Moderate work but more consistency– Makes a difference in the short run

• 3. Redo the nomenclature and coding for ice charting and then harmonize the Ice Objects with electronic charting in mind– Very Large amount of work but maximum usefulness/consistency– There is a large risk that we will modify the ice code and then we

may not be compatible with our legacy data

Questions and Comments

Larson B Feb., 2002

Appendix AExamples of Duplication 1

• Feature: Ice Fracture:• Attribute: Fracture Type:• Code Name • 1 Crack • 2 Tide Crack • 3 Flaw Valid • 4 Very Small Fracture • 5 Small Fracture Valid• 6 Medium Fracture • 7 Large Fracture • 8 Undetermined or Unknown • • There is also a feature called• Feature: Ice Opening• Attribute: Ice Opening Type• Code Name• 1 Crack • 2 Tide Crack • 3 Flaw • 4 Very Small Fracture • 5 Small Fracture • 6 Medium Fracture • 7 Large Fracture • 8 Non-Recurring Polynya • 9 Recurring Polynya • 10 Open Lead • 11 Frozen Lead • 12 Undetermined or Unknown

• Attribute Listed Value (or Enumeration) for Fracture Type:

• 1 Crack• 2 Tide Crack• 3 Flaw• 4 Very Small Fracture 1 - 50 metres.• Small Fracture 50 - 200 metres.• 6 Medium Fracture 200 - 500 metres.• 7 Large Fracture Greater than 500

metres.• 8 Undetermined or Unknown•

• With the following enumerations:• 1 Crack• 2 Tide Crack• 3 Flaw• 4 Very Small Fracture < 50 metres in

length• 5 Small Fracture 50 - 200 metres in

length• 6 Medium Fracture 200 - 500 metres in

length• Large Fracture > 500 metres in

length• 8 Non-Recurring Polynya• 9 Recurring Polynya• 10 Open Lead• 11 Frozen Lead• 12 Undetermined or Unknown

Appendix AExamples of Duplication 2

Feature: Ice Polynya

• Attribute 1: Ice Polynya Type

• Attribute 2: Ice Polynya Status

• Code Name

• 1 Polynya

• 2 Shore Polynya

• 3 Flaw Polynya

• 1 Polynya: An unspecified type of polynya.

• 2 Shore Polynya A polynya between ice and the coast or between ice and an ice front.

• 3 Flaw Polynya A polynya between ice +fast ice.

• Code Name

• 1 Non-Recurring Polynya (This is our “general or non-specific” polynya)

• 2 Recurring Polynya A polynya which recurs in the same position every year.