The 900-Pound Gorilla

The 900-Pound Gorilla

How STORET Affects the Development of Other Data

Management Tools

Gerald BurnetteHydroGeoLogic, Inc.(865) 995-9953www.hgl.com

This Story Begins in an Earlier Time

The Corps of Engineers contracted for the development of a new surface water quality data management system.

Why? Because problems with the system they were currently using were causing missed deadlines, delays, and other frustrations.

Design Goals of the New System Update the user interface

Improve performance and data access

Fix problems with the data model

Add biological sampling capabilities

Provide compatibility with GIS

Enhance graphics and reporting functions

…and export data to STORET

The DASLER SystemData

Management Interface

GIS Interface

Plotting Utilities

DData Management andata Management andAAnalysisnalysisSSystem forystem forLLakes,akes,EEstuaries, andstuaries, andRRiversivers

DASLER and STORET: Worlds Apart?

“DASLER Is from Mars, STORET Is from Venus”

(with apologies to John Gray)


Connecting DASLER to (Legacy) STORET


Approximately 1% of DASLER code devoted to connecting to STORET.

(Text files)

New STORET is Introduced


The connection between DASLER and STORET is broken.

What to Do?Meeting of the interested Corps parties held in Nashville.

Discussion of differences between DASLER data model and STORET data model.

Program Similarities

Objectives were the same

Structures were similar (locations, characteristics, samples, results)

Common data pool (characteristics, methods, etc.)

Program DifferencesDASLERSTORET

More metadata requirements

Configuration required

Station visits and trips

Explicit procedure references

Gear configuration information

Less metadata requirements

“Pre-configured”

Sampling events only

Procedures and gear information tied to collection method field

Why the Differences?To understand why DASLER and STORET are different, you need only look at the target audiences.

STORET: much larger user base, with vastly different backgrounds and procedures

DASLER: relatively small number of users, with common backgrounds and procedures

Consensus of the MeetingThe only option – if connection to STORET is to be re-established – is to modify DASLER.

Plan developed for altering DASLER to meet new STORET requirements.

Construction of the new version began in February 2001.

Changes to DASLER

Database changes – to enforce some of the same metadata requirements found in STORET

User interface changes – to capture some of the additional information

Export routines – to send data to STORET via SIM

Connection Re-established


Now, approximately 5% of DASLER code devoted to connecting to STORET.

(SIM)

DASLER User Base Expands

Expanded User Base Produces Unexpected Side Effect




DASLER-CE DASLER-X

“Two DASLERs diverged in a yellow wood…”

(with apologies to Robert Frost)

DASLER-X Reaches Wider Audience


Approximately 15% of DASLER-X code devoted to connecting to STORET.

(SIM)

Wider Audience Requires More Changes

Addition of project concept with support tables

Personnel information, including training

Location and parameter aliases

Support for continuous monitoring data

More “special” entries for STORET exports

As the audience expands, the amount of effort spent making DASLER compatible with STORET increases.

A Good Thing or A Bad Thing?Good

More robust data model

Broader applicability

Increased client base

Increased development time

Requires more support

Constant need to monitor STORET developments

Bad

Conclusions

STORET has had a major influence on development efforts.

This influence has a measurable effect on project budget.

Despite these factors, maintaining compatibility with STORET is a worthwhile goal that has many positive outcomes.

The 900-Pound Gorilla

Documents

Transcript of The 900-Pound Gorilla