OR/14/022 Comparison of approaches: Difference between revisions

From MediaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Dbk (talk | contribs)
Created page with "__notoc__ {{OR/14/022}} Table 1 is a first attempt at a high level summary of selected coupling technologies which serves as a means to quickly compare some of the key feature..."
 
Dbk (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
Table 1 is a first attempt at a high level summary of selected coupling technologies which serves as a means to quickly compare some of the key features associated with couplers. Dunlap ''et al., ''(2013) describe an approach to assessing coupler features through feature analysis and the creation of feature diagrams, this approach may be considered as a subsequent, more detailed, analysis was required. Carrying out a feature analysis based approach would be much easier to achieve after the couplers described in the following matrix have been whittled down to a short list of candidates.
Table 1 is a first attempt at a high level summary of selected coupling technologies which serves as a means to quickly compare some of the key features associated with couplers. Dunlap ''et al., ''(2013) describe an approach to assessing coupler features through feature analysis and the creation of feature diagrams, this approach may be considered as a subsequent, more detailed, analysis was required. Carrying out a feature analysis based approach would be much easier to achieve after the couplers described in the following matrix have been whittled down to a short list of candidates.


The technologies compared in the matrix were specifically identified as being relevant, or potentially relevant, to current BGS activities.


The technologies compared in the matrix were specifically identified as being relevant, or potentially relevant, to current BGS activities.
</div> <br clear="all">  <div>
== Table 1.  Comparison of coupling approaches ==
== Table 1.  Comparison of coupling approaches ==


''' '''
{| class="wikitable"
 
|+ Table 1 Comparison of coupling approaches
{| border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
|
|
|
|
| '''CSDMS'''''' ''''''1.0'''
| '''CSDMS 1.0'''
| '''CSDMS'''''' ''''''2.0'''
| '''CSDMS 2.0'''
| '''OpenMI 1.4'''
| '''OpenMI 1.4'''
| '''OpenMI 2.0'''
| '''OpenMI 2.0'''
| '''Trident'''''' '''[file:///W:/PP/GraphicCommunications/Graphic%20Design/Live_Jobs/2014%20Reports/2014/14022/OR14022.docx#_bookmark0 '''2''']
| '''Trident '''[file:///W:/PP/GraphicCommunications/Graphic%20Design/Live_Jobs/2014%20Reports/2014/14022/OR14022.docx#_bookmark0 '''2''']
| '''CESM-CPL'''''' ''''''7'''
| '''CESM-CPL 7'''
| '''OASIS3-'''''' ''''''MCT_2.0'''
| '''OASIS3-MCT_2.0'''
| '''FLUME'''
| '''FLUME'''
|-
|-
Line 29: Line 26:
| Yes
| Yes
| Yes
| Yes
| Yes
| Yes Community led since 2013, previously an MS initiative
 
| Yes Subject to the IPR    rules    of embedded software
 
 
Community led since                   2013, previously an MS initiative
| Yes
 
 
 
Subject to the IPR    rules    of embedded software
| Yes (LGPL)
| Yes (LGPL)
| No
| No
Line 44: Line 33:
| Primary research community
| Primary research community
| Surface dynamics
| Surface dynamics
| Surface  dynamics
| Surface  dynamics + ?
 
 
 
+ ?
| Water
| Water
| Water
| Water + extra env. disciplines
 
 
 
+   extra   env. disciplines
| Oceanography
| Oceanography
| Climate
| Climate
Line 61: Line 42:
|-
|-
| Central model repository
| Central model repository
| Yes
| Yes CSDMS portal
 
| Yes CSDMS portal
 
| Yes but optional FluidEarth
 
| ? Could use FluidEarth but no 2.0 models there yet
CSDMS portal
| Some models held on a site called myExperiment and CSIRO have their own repository
| Yes
 
 
 
CSDMS portal
| Yes             but
 
 
 
optional FluidEarth
| ?
 
 
 
Could use FluidEarth but no 2.0 models there yet
| Some                   models held   on   a   site called myExperiment and   CSIRO   have their                     own
 
 
 
repository
| No
| No
| No
| No
Line 91: Line 52:
|-
|-
| rowspan="2" | Functionality and implementation details
| rowspan="2" | Functionality and implementation details
| Visual   workflow   configuration interface
| Visual workflow configuration interface
| Yes (CMT)
| Yes (CMT)
| Yes (CMT)
| Yes (CMT)
Line 101: Line 62:
| Yes (GUI)
| Yes (GUI)
|-
|-
| Visual ‘programming’ interface
| Visual ‘programming’ interface Tools for creating model components that require relatively low level of programming              experience, recommended by ''Gou D et al.,, 2012''
 
| ? None identified
 
| ? None identified
 
| Partially  3rd party        tools e.g.        Visual Studio
Tools for creating model components that require relatively low level of programming              experience, recommended by ''Gou D et al.,, 2012''
| Partially  3rd party        tools e.g.              Visual Studio
| ?
 
 
 
None identified
| ?
 
 
 
None identified
| Partially  3rd party        tools
 
 
 
e.g.        Visual Studio
| Partially  3rd party        tools
 
 
 
e.g.              Visual Studio
| Yes
| Yes
| ?
| ? None identified
 
| ? None identified
 
| ? None identified
 
None identified
| ?
 
 
 
None identified
| ?
 
 
 
None identified
|}
|}
</div> <br clear="all">  <div>
''' '''
''' '''
''' '''
''' '''
''' '''
''' '''
''' '''
</div> <br clear="all">  <div>
''' '''
''' '''
''' '''
''' '''
''' '''
''' '''
''' '''
''' '''
''' '''
''' '''
Model Languages supported
This is a list of  languages that pre-compiled models/components              can          be written in.
<br clear="all">
written in C, C++, Fortran (all        years),
Java            and Python.  CMT conversion done      by CSDMS staff
C,
Fortran      (77,
95, 2003), C++,
Java, Python
<br clear="all">
documentation no          longer
mentions  Fortran and    Java
wrapping tool not available yet
C,
Fortran  (77,  95,
2003), C++,
Java, Python
<br clear="all">
{| cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"
| !--[if !mso]-->


{| cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"
{| cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"

Revision as of 11:56, 22 May 2015

Barkwith A K A P, Pachocka M, Watson C, Hughes A G. 2014. Couplers for linking environmental models: Scoping study and potential next steps. British Geological Survey Internal Report, OR/14/022.

Table 1 is a first attempt at a high level summary of selected coupling technologies which serves as a means to quickly compare some of the key features associated with couplers. Dunlap et al., (2013) describe an approach to assessing coupler features through feature analysis and the creation of feature diagrams, this approach may be considered as a subsequent, more detailed, analysis was required. Carrying out a feature analysis based approach would be much easier to achieve after the couplers described in the following matrix have been whittled down to a short list of candidates.

The technologies compared in the matrix were specifically identified as being relevant, or potentially relevant, to current BGS activities.

Table 1. Comparison of coupling approaches

Table 1 Comparison of coupling approaches
CSDMS 1.0 CSDMS 2.0 OpenMI 1.4 OpenMI 2.0 Trident [file:///W:/PP/GraphicCommunications/Graphic%20Design/Live_Jobs/2014%20Reports/2014/14022/OR14022.docx#_bookmark0 2] CESM-CPL 7 OASIS3-MCT_2.0 FLUME
Background Open Source Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Community led since 2013, previously an MS initiative Yes Subject to the IPR rules of embedded software Yes (LGPL) No
Primary research community Surface dynamics Surface dynamics + ? Water Water + extra env. disciplines Oceanography Climate Climate Climate
Central model repository Yes CSDMS portal Yes CSDMS portal Yes but optional FluidEarth ? Could use FluidEarth but no 2.0 models there yet Some models held on a site called myExperiment and CSIRO have their own repository No No ?
Functionality and implementation details Visual workflow configuration interface Yes (CMT) Yes (CMT) Yes (FluidEarth) Yes (FluidEarth) Yes Yes (GUI) Yes (GUI) Yes (GUI)
Visual ‘programming’ interface Tools for creating model components that require relatively low level of programming experience, recommended by Gou D et al.,, 2012 ? None identified ? None identified Partially 3rd party tools e.g. Visual Studio Partially 3rd party tools e.g. Visual Studio Yes ? None identified ? None identified ? None identified
!--[endif]-->
CSDMS' '1.0 CSDMS' '2.0 OpenMI 1.4 OpenMI 2.0 'Trident' [file:///W:/PP/GraphicCommunications/Graphic%20Design/Live_Jobs/2014%20Reports/2014/14022/OR14022.docx#_bookmark0 2] CESM-CPL' '7 OASIS3- FLUME
MCT_2.0
Programming language for the BMI functions Same as 1.0 C#, C#, .NET (C# & Fortran Fortran 77, ?
framework SDK/wrapper code can be except for the VB.NET) Fortran 90
 !--[if !mso]-->

!--[if !vml]--> |} !--[if gte vml 1]>  !--[if !vml]--> !--[endif]-->Java?






And supported by XML








C#,


Java, C, C++,


Fortran,


Pascal






(And via 3rd party SSW: MATLAB,


Scilab, Python)



Java?






And supported by XML








C#,


Java, C, C++,


Fortran,


Pascal






(SSW for 2.0 planned)





















R, Python, TIME






Also includes support for


ArcGIS and


related spatial functions





















Fortran



and C
















Fortran 77,  ?


Fortran 90 and C


!--[if gte vml 1]>  !--[if !vml]-->!--[endif]-->Invasiveness


How much a model needs to be altered before it can be used in the framework


(Jagers,' '2010; Lloyd et al., 2011)


Both OpenMI and CSDMS use similar methods to prepare components for use in each framework, namely implement methods such as initialise, run, describe and finalise. It was not clear from this initial investigation if one was much more invasive than the other.


? High, this


framework is designed for a set of fixed models representing the key earth systems


Low- intrusiveness, portability and flexibility are key


design concepts


Low


CSDMS' '1.0 CSDMS' '2.0 OpenMI 1.4 OpenMI 2.0 'Trident' [file:///W:/PP/GraphicCommunications/Graphic%20Design/Live_Jobs/2014%20Reports/2014/14022/OR14022.docx#_bookmark0 2] CESM-CPL' '7 OASIS3-' 'MCT_2.0 FLUME
Time stepping Yes Yes Yes Yes ? Yes Yes Yes
Two way model communication ? ? Yes Yes ?


Most descriptions involve linear one direction workflows

Yes Yes Yes
“Non-temporal data source” e.g. 3D model files or database Yes


68 datasets available on the CSDMS portal 25/10/2013

Yes No Yes Yes Yes


Typically two dimensional gridded datasets are passed

Yes Yes
Model metadata


The framework supports the capture of metadata, ideally at least partially automated

Yes


Via a model metadata file XML

Yes


OMI XML file defines exchange items, more descriptive information can also be captured

? Yes Yes Yes
Qualitative model exchange items ? ? No Yes ? ?


None identified

?


None identified

?


None identified

Utilities Spatial conversion Yes


Grid based

Yes Yes Yes


Grid based

Yes


Grid based

Yes
Temporal scale conversion Yes Yes ? Yes Yes
Unit conversions Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No, models need to use Via external libraries? Yes


CSDMS' '1.0 CSDMS' '2.0 OpenMI 1.4 OpenMI 2.0 'Trident' [file:///W:/PP/GraphicCommunications/Graphic%20Design/Live_Jobs/2014%20Reports/2014/14022/OR14022.docx#_bookmark0 2] CESM-CPL' '7 OASIS3-' 'MCT_2.0 FLUME
standard units
Semantic model attribution ? Yes ? ? ? No ? ?
Scientific performance1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Implementation ready? (Eg. SDK available) Yes No? Yes Yes Ye name="_bookmark0"s2 Yes although limited scope for the work we undertake Yes No

!--[if mso & !supportInlineShapes & supportFields]> SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT ![endif]-->!--[if gte vml 1]>  !--[if !vml]-->!--[if gte vml 1]>  ![endif]-->!--[if mso & !supportInlineShapes & supportFields]>  ![endif]-->




1 There is a danger that we confuse the evaluation of the technology and the scientific robustness of the solution, especially when the solution is relatively new or designed for another purpose.


2 Project Trident is a now open source project, originally set up by Microsoft, it is described as ‘a scientific workflow workbench’. The most readily available information on an implementation of the Trident software came from publications and website for the ‘Hydrologists Workbench’, an implementation developed by CSIRO, Australia. The Hydrologists Workbench was used as a proxy for the Trident software when carrying out feature analysis for the matrix, it is therefore possible that some features identified are not fully developed in the original version of the Trident code available via CodePlex.