METAFOR

1

• METAFOR
• Common Metadata for Climate Modelling Digital
  Repositories

Total budget of 2.2M (1.5M, 3M) Starting in
March 2008 Duration 3 years

• 11 partners
• NCAS, UK (Coordinator)
• BADC, UK
• CERFACS, France
• Models and Data, MPI, Germany
• IPSL, France
• University of Manchester, UK
• Met Office, UK
• Administratia Nationala de Meterologie, Romania
• Météo France, CNRM, France
• CLIMPACT, France
• CICS, Princeton University, USA

EU I3 Infrastructure project - The proposal
2
Vision of METAFOR

• An Information Model that is common for all
  stages of both production and the use of climate
  model data.
• Tools that populate, create, manipulate, convert
  and exploit this Common Information Model to
  allow climate models and climate model data to be
  inter-comparable and sharable.

CIM Common Information Model based on current,
emerging and new metadata standards
EU I3 Infrastructure project - The proposal
3
The open standard developed in METAFOR will play
a catalytic role in the way next generation
climate data repositories, such as IPCC AR5, are
organised, preserved and accessed.
The diagram below shows the nature of the current
4th assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC AR4) data repository and
shows the challenge for IPCC AR5 which will be
larger, more comprehensive and more complex.
EU I3 Infrastructure project - The proposal
4
METAFOR has 286 person months of effort
WP 6 CIM creation tools
CIM Common Information Model
WP 2

WP 1 Admin Eric Guilyardi, NCAS 14
WP2 CIM Lois Steenman-Clark, NCAS 101
WP 3 Verification Laurent Fairhead, IPSL 47
WP 4 Portals Bryan Lawrence, BADC 32
WP 5 Exploitation tools Allyn Treshansky, UKMO 41
WP6 CIM creation tools Michael Lautenschlager, MPI 39
WP7 Dissemination Eric Guilyardi, NCAS 12
WP 3 Verification
WP 4 Data Portals
WP 5 CIM exploitation tools
5
Oct 2007
Oct 2008
Oct 2009
Oct 2010
Oct 2011
Curator
METAFOR
AR5
Expt design running expts
AR5 Portal Metadata Metadata
Metadata requirements
collection delivery

• Timelines are tight
• AR5 experiments could be running before metadata
  standards and tools are available in their final
  form
• Limited effort is available for accommodating
  modelling groups outside the current European/US
  METAFOR/Curator discussions

6
Oct 2007
Oct 2008
Oct 2009
Oct 2010
Oct 2011
Curator
METAFOR
AR5

• METAFOR for AR5
• CIM based data portals design and implementation

• CIM to encompass AR5
• metadata requirements

? Access to CIM tools and services

• CIM verification ? part of AR5 quality control

• CIM tools for ingestion ? tools made
  available to modellers

• CIM exploitation tools

7

• METAFOR has to work closely with AR5, as this is
  its key use case
• definition of metadata requirements
• First 3 months of METAFOR metadata gap analysis
• Q what metadata was missing from AR4 that would
  have enhanced the shareability, the analysis and
  the understanding of the AR4 data set
• logistics of collecting data and metadata
• Q can METAFOR build on Curator experience to
  enhance the metadata management issues?
• sharing of metadata tools and services
• In designing tools and services can METAFOR be
  involved in
• Playing a part in AR5 quality control
• Taking part in the CMOR re-design?

- Delivery of data via the distributed data
portals BADC, WCDC will be CIM compliant data
services
8
CIM Common Information Model based on current,
emerging and new metadata standards
Key to success will be understanding the metadata
need and requirements
PRISM
NMM
FLUME
Curator
CF
Metadata Provenance ?international standards
ISO ?community standards CF ?project
standards NMM ?workflow standards Curator,
ESG, FLUME ?hand generated Numsim,
DIF ?externally imposed CMOR,CERA
CIM metadata is common but an amalgam of
different standards with diverse governance, each
evolving and developing at different rates.
9

• METAFOR gap analysis
• For the AR5 use case.
• - Lessons learnt from AR5, both data providers
  and data users as well as the data collection
  agents
• What level of quality control on metadata will
  be required for AR5 and how is this going to be
  managed?
• Is the metadata going to be used for some
  element of quality control for the AR5 data?
• What level of 3rd party involvement will be
  needed for the AR5 metadata, is it expected to be
  used by the impacts community?