Standardizing Reference Data

1
Standardizing Reference Data

• Jan Hay, Excalibur Gemini
• Paul Bazinet, IHS Energy
• Jay Hollingsworth, Exxon-Mobil
• December 8, 1999

2
Overview

• The Oil and Gas Industry (EP, Regulatory,
  Software and Data Vendor) requires a common,
  extensible, centrally maintained Electronic
  Reference Data Library
• PPDM and POSC intend to co-operate in a joint
  initiative to satisfy this requirement

PPDM
PPDM/POSC Common Registry
POSC
3
Project Goals and Objectives

• Establish a lightweight process
• simple to understand
• easy to use
• scheduled development, updates
• Self supporting
• Business content of reference data independent of
  data model
• Validate the methodology using a set of 6
  prototype reference data types

4
Benefits

• Facilitate model Implementation
• Share cost and effort to develop value lists
• Promote correct use of a data model
• Assist data exchange
• Reduce data translation ambiguity
• Provide consistent content for mapping between
  models
• Simplify data access and query mechanisms
• Allow integration with other organizations or
  initiatives

5
Business Requirements

• Human readable (intuitive)
• Machine readable (implementable)
• Change management process (versioning)
• Users can add values (extensible)
• Recognize existing reference value sets (aliases
  )
• Support source acknowledgement (sources)
• Allow mapping between sources (your violet and
  my red map to purple in the standard set)
• Meaningful descriptions and documentation
  (definitions)

6
Pilot Project Deliverables

• Methodology
• How will it be done?
• What issues and problems will be encountered?
• Who will buy in to the process?
• When can it be done?

• Sample set of 6 prototype reference data types
• country name
• media type
• seismic energy source
• seismic recording format
• well elevation type
• seismic dimensions

7
Reference Library Project Organizational Structure
8
Methodology Overview
A. Selection of Reference Set
Central Work Group
Reject
B. Submission of Values
Central Work Group
Appeal (Central WG)
Reject
C. Validation and Reconciliation
Technical Work Group
Reject
D. Delivery
Central Work Group
E. Maintenance
Technical Work Group
9
SourcesNot Re-Inventing the Wheel

• Standards Organizations
• ISO
• American Petroleum Institute (API), PIDX...
• Regulatory agencies
• Alberta EUB, Dept of Trade and Industry (UK DTI),
  MMS, BLM...
• Research and scientific organizations
• AGSO, GSC, USGS ...
• Participating companies
• Software vendors, data vendors, EP
• Small, medium and large companies
• POSC reference values

10
Meta Data

• Identification data for submissions

11
Reference Data Issues

• Technical Issues
• Standardized set of values only?
• Mappings to other sources? Aliases?
• Version support, frequency of updates
• Granularity (hierarchical relationships)
• Business Issues
• Who owns the reference data?
• Who owns the mappings?
• Legal issues (liability etc.)
• Methodology
• Development, delivery and maintenance
• Self-supporting

12
Management Issues

• Project Management
• Accounting, administration, coordination, etc.
• Delivery Process
• Internet
• Update frequency
• Costs?
• Electronic library content
• Meta data, reference values and aliases
• ASCII (spreadsheet?) format
• Support Information (Human readable)
• Data reference type definition and description
• Usage Guide for Reference Data

13
Summary

• Pilot Project underway
• Scheduled completion 4Q99
• Methodology proposal being tested
• Project success factors
• Self funded
• Long term vision
• development
• maintenance
• Member driven
• Take advantage of work already done