OR/14/022 Comparison of approaches: Difference between revisions
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..." |
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. | |||
== Table 1. Comparison of coupling approaches == | == Table 1. Comparison of coupling approaches == | ||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|+ Table 1 Comparison of coupling approaches | |||
{| | |||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
| '''CSDMS | | '''CSDMS 1.0''' | ||
| '''CSDMS | | '''CSDMS 2.0''' | ||
| '''OpenMI 1.4''' | | '''OpenMI 1.4''' | ||
| '''OpenMI 2.0''' | | '''OpenMI 2.0''' | ||
| '''Trident | | '''Trident '''[file:///W:/PP/GraphicCommunications/Graphic%20Design/Live_Jobs/2014%20Reports/2014/14022/OR14022.docx#_bookmark0 '''2'''] | ||
| '''CESM-CPL | | '''CESM-CPL 7''' | ||
| '''OASIS3- | | '''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 | |||
| 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 | ||
+ | |||
| 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 | |||
optional FluidEarth | |||
| ? | |||
Could use FluidEarth but no 2.0 models there yet | |||
| Some | |||
repository | |||
| No | | No | ||
| No | | No | ||
Line 91: | Line 52: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| rowspan="2" | Functionality and implementation details | | rowspan="2" | Functionality and implementation details | ||
| Visual | | 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 | |||
|} | |} | ||
{| 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
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]-->
|
!--[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.