See also: OATC Wiki Home

Date: 25. May 2011
Time: 14:30- 15:30 CEST
Venue: Skype Conference Call
Topic: OGC documentation and SDKs

Table of contents


Adrian Harper, Innovyze Ltd (
Stef Hummel, Deltares (, DHI (
Peter Schade, Bundesanstalt fuer Wasserbau (peter.schade(at)
Rob Knapen, Alterra, Wageningen UR (
Jesper Grooss, DHI (


Status OGC

Standa started to prepare the documentation, reading documents and templates.

It is sufficient to state that a test follows the documentation. An automatic test procedure is not necessary.
Standa's impression is that the documentation is feasible.

SDK's / GUI's

Fluid Earth SDK/Pipistrelle

Adrian can work 3 days a week on the SDK, starting 22th June.


Deltares will use a subset of OpenMI 2 for their data assimilation tool. They will probably start with the current OATC SDK.

Standa found some problems in the OATC SDK he will communicate to the OATC.

Jesper fixed some bugs in the SDK, e.g. time handling.

Issue from a paper:
Gena once extended the 1.x SDK with an iteration controller. This is available in the 1.4 examples branch on SourceForge. Thus, the OpenMI is capable of handling iterations. Gena will be contacted.

Oatc Java SDK/GUI

 Rob is working on the SDK starting with easy test cases.

Other issues

Standa has contact with a developer from Poland who is interested in contributing a Python version of OpenMI. According to Jesper it is easy to link together components in Iron Pythons, s. According to Adrian IronClad wraps CPython more or less.

Jesper makes Mike SHE OpenMI 2 compliant, leading to bug fixes in the SDK.

Rob is writing an OpenMI article for a thematic issue of the "Environmental Modelling and Software" journal.

The BAW has ported its LinkableComponent GEIWrapper to Windows 64bit. The integration of a netCDF 4 reader is planned.

The EGU 2011 poster is available under .

An OATC email address was suggested, something like or Standa will contact the OAEC in that question.

Extrapolation of span values

Consider the picture below, having two spans in the buffer, namely:

Span 0-1 : value 1
Span 1-2 : value 2

If asking for an extrapolated value for the span 2-3, we would expect to get the value 3 (the dashed line in the figure below). But you could also argue to return the value 2.5.

The difference between the two, is than in the former the extrapolation line is assumed to be a line through the center of the spans, while the latter assumes a line starting at the end of the last span, and having the same slope as the line through the centers.

Which to use?

Jesper will use the dashed line approach.

Next meeting

Skype meeting in principle on 15th June, 14:00 CEST, Stef has to agree.