VA Advisory deficiency

[blchoy]

It was lately noticed that the representation of a volcano in a VA Advisory is less than what is required in Annex 3, including the "State or region" and "Submmit elevation". This should be fixed in 3.0.0RC3.

[blchoy]

The following is the existing implementation inherited from v2.1.1:

<iwxxm:issuingVolcanicAshAdvisoryCentre>
    ...
</iwxxm:issuingVolcanicAshAdvisoryCentre>

<iwxxm:volcano>
    <metce:EruptingVolcano gml:id="uuid.1b9ee023-c87d-4fa0-bf9b-bb1c7215286c">
        <gml:description>FL300 REPORTED</gml:description>
        <metce:name>KARYMSKY 1000-13</metce:name>
        <metce:position>
            <gml:Point gml:id="uuid.687c6e95-460a-4397-a602-ea8483acc3fc" srsName="http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/4979">
                <gml:pos>54.03 159.27 1536</gml:pos>
            </gml:Point>
        </metce:position>
        <metce:eruptionDate>2008-09-23T01:30:00Z</metce:eruptionDate>
    </metce:EruptingVolcano>
</iwxxm:volcano>

<iwxxm:advisoryNumber>2008/4</iwxxm:advisoryNumber>

<iwxxm:informationSource>MTSAT-1R KVERT KEMSD</iwxxm:informationSource>

<iwxxm:colourCode xlink:href="http://codes.wmo.int/49-2/AviationColourCode/RED"/>

The drawback of this implementation is that it lacks "state or region" in TAC, "summit elevation" goes into the gml:pos, and parts of the eruption details is going into a gml:description under metce:EruptingVolcano. As we don't want to change METCE, a possible implementation will be:

<iwxxm:issuingVolcanicAshAdvisoryCentre>
    ...
</iwxxm:issuingVolcanicAshAdvisoryCentre>

<iwxxm:volcano>
    <metce:EruptingVolcano gml:id="uuid.1b9ee023-c87d-4fa0-bf9b-bb1c7215286c">
        <metce:name>KARYMSKY 1000-13</metce:name>
        <metce:position>
            <gml:Point gml:id="uuid.687c6e95-460a-4397-a602-ea8483acc3fc"
                       srsDimension="2"
                       axisLabels="Lat Long"
                       srsName="http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/4326">
                <gml:pos>54.03 159.27</gml:pos>
            </gml:Point>
        </metce:position>
        <metce:eruptionDate>2008-09-23T01:30:00Z</metce:eruptionDate>
    </metce:EruptingVolcano>
</iwxxm:volcano>

<iwxxm:stateOrRegion>RUSSIA</iwxxm:stateOrRegion>

<iwxxm:summitElevation uom="m">1536</iwxxm:summitElevation>

<iwxxm:advisoryNumber>2008/4</iwxxm:advisoryNumber>

<iwxxm:informationSource>MTSAT-1R KVERT KEMSD</iwxxm:informationSource>

<iwxxm:colourCode xlink:href="http://codes.wmo.int/49-2/AviationColourCode/RED"/>

<iwxxm:eruptionDetails>FL300 REPORTED</eruptionDetails>

Views are welcome.

[mgoberfield]

Stupid questions follow:

1) What is so abhorrent about using a 3-D CRS in ? 2) If a 3-D CRS is unacceptable, wouldn't adding and

constitute a bug fix release? It seems to me that METCE needs to be updated and using IWXXM to fix the problem is a kludge. Not trying to be argumentative, just curious as to why changing METCE is closed off to us. mark On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:35 AM BL Choy wrote: > The following is the existing implementation inherited from v2.1.1: > > > ... > > > > > FL300 REPORTED > KARYMSKY 1000-13 > > > 54.03 159.27 1536 > > > 2008-09-23T01:30:00Z > > > > 2008/4 > > MTSAT-1R KVERT KEMSD > > > > The drawback of this implementation is that it lacks "state or region" in > TAC, "summit elevation" goes into the gml:pos, and parts of the eruption > details is going into a gml:description under metce:EruptingVolcano. As we > don't want to change METCE, a possible implementation will be: > > > ... > > > > > KARYMSKY 1000-13 > > srsDimension="2" > axisLabels="Lat Lon" > srsName="http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/4326"> > 54.03 159.27 > > > 2008-09-23T01:30:00Z > > > > RUSSIA > > > 1536 > EGM_96 > > > 2008/4 > > MTSAT-1R KVERT KEMSD > > > > FL300 REPORTED > > Views are welcome. > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > , or mute > the thread > > . >

[jkorosi]

The issue is UNKNOWN volcano and position. How should be this properly encoded?

[mgoberfield]

Hello Jan,

Does

UNKNOWN OR UNNAMED suffice for the "UNKNOWN volcano and position" case? mark On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:27 AM jkorosi wrote: > The issue is UNKNOWN volcano and position. How should be this properly > encoded? > > — > You are receiving this because you commented. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > , or mute > the thread > > . >

[jkorosi]

Hello Mark,

I just reacted to

1) What is so abhorrent about using a 3-D CRS in ?

Without Choy's fix, if metce:position is set to nil then it will not be possible to set elevation.

Jan

[mgoberfield]

I see. Thank you, Jan.

[blchoy]

METCE is WMO Logical Data Model and is suppose to provide a governed description of weather objects for community use. However, not even other WMO teams are interested in using it. Probably because it has too little weather objects right now or inconvenient to use because of its structure? To continue our wish to govern weather objects may be we can follow the foot steps of AIRM where only concepts and logical presentations of them are created for others to make reference to through semantic mappings to demonstrate compliance but at the same time giving flexibility to the developers?

[blchoy]

This was fixed in IWXXM 3.0.0RC3.