See also: OATC Wiki Home

Date: June 8 - 11, 2009
Venue:Deltares , Rotterdamseweg 185, Delft, The Netherlands

...

Rob Knapen, Alterra, Wageningen UR (Rob.Knapen@wur.nl)
Standa Vanecek, DHI (s.vanecek@dhi.cz)
Adrian Harper, Wallingford Software (adrian.harper@wallingfordsoftware.com)
Stef Hummel, Deltares (stef.hummel@deltares.nl)
~don Unknown User (don), Deltares (gennadii.donchyts@deltares.nl)
~jnh@dhigroup Unknown User (jnh@dhigroup.com), DHI (jnh@dhigroup.com)
Peter Schade, Bundesanstalt fuer Wasserbau (peter.schade@baw.de)
Rob Brinkman, Deltares (rob.brinkman@deltares.nl)
Bert Jagers, Deltares (bert.jagers@deltares.nl)

Apologies:
Jesper Grooss, DHI (jgr@dhigroup.com)
Jan Gregersen, LicTek, (Gregersen@LicTek.dk)
Unknown User (moovida), Andrea Antonello, Universita` di Trento, (andrea.antonello@gmail.com)

...

Stef experimented a bit. Two major issues to have a look at came up:

• when to extrapolate/interpolate
• the component needs to know which decorator is a TimeDecorator.
  See discussion in chapter 4 on decorators.

2.5 GUI

The Gui is quite on its way. To be done:

...

• IArgument needs a mechanism for identifying the type of argument e.g. File, Path, int double etc Very usful for providing customised GUI functionality
  Various solutions were proposed (see below). Disadvantage of having an enumeration in the Standard is that it can not be extended easily. An object type definition would be more specific.
  Rob K. concludes that Alterra's approach works quite well for what we want. The approach is based on recognized strings in the key of the Argument.
  Action: Rob K. will provide an example.
  Done June 10: Please see the IArgumentV2.java class file that I have attached to these meeting notes. This interface documents all the extensions we made to standard OpenMI 1.2 IArgument interface to make it more usable for our (GUI related) purposes (some time ago). The comments in the source file should provide all the explanation needed
  We have studied the example and various propositions, and choose for to the following solution (to be documented yet) .

...

• :

  Code Block

...

...

• public

...

• interface

...

• IArgument : IIdentifiable, IDescribable {

...

• Type

...

• ValueType

...

• { get; }

...

• bool IsRequired { get; }

...

• bool IsReadOnly { get;

...

• }

...

• object

...

• Value

...

• {

...

• get;

...

• set; }

...

• object

...

• DefaultValue

...

• {

...

• get; }

...

• IList<object> GetPossibleValues();

...

• string Characteristics { get; } }

The Characteristics attribute can be used to describe requirements on or additional qualification on the argument, e.g.: "NewFile", "ExistingFile". Although understanding the characteristics is GUI-dependent, we expect that a list of generally known qualifiers will gradually arise.

The IsReadOnly attribute defines whether the Values property may be edited from outside, as in OpenMI 1.4.
Some Oatc members think it should be removed (assuming that every argument is editable), others think it is needed.
Stef has given two examples of 1.4. omi files where to his opinion it is needed indeed.

Adrian's proposal:

namespace OpenMI.Standard
{
    public enum EArgType
    {
        String = 0, // default
        Bool,XML, // Rob: can be used together with a schema for complex argument data
        MIME, // Rob: might be useful to pass in images, or text documents, etc.
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// The IArgument interface defines a key - value pair. If the property ReadOnly is
    /// false the value is editable otherwise it is read-only.
    /// </summary>
    public interface IArgument : IDescribable
    {
        /// <summary>Int,
        /// Type that string value represents and can be converted toDouble,
        Path, // presummed to exist and accessable
        FilePath, /// </summary>
presummed to exist and accessable
    EArgType ValueType { get; }

	/// <summary>
PathNew,
        FilePathNew,
        XML, /// The key (string) in key-value pair.
	/// </summary>
	string Key {get;}

	/// <summary>
 Rob: can be used together with a schema for complex argument data
        MIME, /// <para>The value (double) in key-value pair.</para>Rob: might be useful to pass in images, or text documents, etc.
    }

    /// <summary>
        /// <para>IfThe theIArgument ReadOnlyinterface propertydefines isa truekey and- thevalue propertypair. isIf attemptedthe toproperty beReadOnly changedis
        /// fromfalse outside an exception must be thrown.</para>
	the value is editable otherwise it is read-only.
    /// </summary>
	string Value { get; set; }

	    public interface IArgument : IDescribable
    {
        /// <summary>
        /// Type Definesthat whetherstring thevalue Valuesrepresents propertyand maycan be editedconverted to
 from outside.
	       /// </summary>
	bool ReadOnly {get;}
    }
}

Gena's proposal:

Current version:

  EArgType ValueType public{ interface IArgument : IDescribableget; }

	/// <summary>
    {
    /// The key  (string) Keyin { get; }key-value pair.
	/// </summary>
	string Key {get;}

	/// <summary>
        string Value { get; set; }/// <para>The value (double) in key-value pair.</para>
        bool ReadOnly { get; }
    }

Proposed change to cover types:

    public interface IDescribable
    {
  ///
        /// <para>If the ReadOnly property is true and the property is attempted to be changed
      string Caption { get; set; }
        string Description/// from outside an exception must be thrown.</para>
	/// </summary>
	string Value { get; set; }
    }

	/// <summary>
    public interface IValueDefinition : IDescribable
/// Defines whether the {
Values property may be edited from outside.
	///  Type ValueType</summary>
	bool ReadOnly { get; }
    }
}

Gena's proposal:

Current version:

    boolpublic DescribesSameAs(IValueDefinition otherValueDefinition);interface IArgument : IDescribable
    }{

    public interface IArgument : IValueDefinition
string Key { get; {}
         objectstring Value { get; set; }
         bool ReadOnly { get; }
    }

1. Suggestion by Gena on pull / loop approach
   Discussion/Conclusion: A good idea to introduce the GetValues, to recognize the pull approach. However, instead of on the LinkableComponent, for now it has been put on the output item (see above). If it turns out to be more logical to be on the LinkableComponent, we may move it there. To be considered at next meeting .

Proposed change to cover types:

    public interface IDescribable
    {
        string Caption { get; set; }
        string Description { get; set; }
    }

    public interface IValueDefinition : IDescribable
    {
        Type ValueType { get; }

  // =================================== pull approach

  var triggerExchangeItem = component.OutputItems[0];
  triggerComponent.GetValues(triggerExchangeItem);


  // =================================== loop approach

  while(!allComponentsAreFinished)
  {
      foreach(var component in components)
      {
        bool  if(component.Status != LinkableComponentStatus.Finished)DescribesSameAs(IValueDefinition otherValueDefinition);
          {}

    public interface IArgument : IValueDefinition
      component.Update();{
         object }
Value { get; set;   }
  }

  public interface ILinkableComponent
  {
      LinkableComponentStatus Statusbool ReadOnly { get; }
    }

1. Suggestion by Gena on pull / loop approach
   Discussion/Conclusion: A good idea to introduce the GetValues, to recognize the pull approach. However, instead of on the LinkableComponent, for now it has been put on the output item (see above). If it turns out to be more logical to be on the LinkableComponent, we may move it there. To be considered at next meeting .

  // =================================== pull approach

  var triggerExchangeItem = component.OutputItems[0];
  triggerComponent.GetValues(triggerExchangeItem);


  // =================================== loop approach

  while(!allComponentsAreFinished)
  {
      foreach(var component in components)
      {  void Initialize();
      void Validate();
      void Update();
      void Finish();
      IList<IInputItem> InputItems { get; }
      IList<IOutputItem> OutputItems { get; }
      bool  CascadeUpdateCallsDisabled { get; set; }

 if(component.Status != LinkableComponentStatus.Finished)
         // Suggestion:{
 ask for specific values: e.g. filtered data
      IList GetValues(IInputExchangeItem querycomponent.Update();

  }

1. Gena's suggestion for 2D return type (see below)
   Discussion/Conclusion: Not to be included in the standard 2.0. Could be used in the backbone, and probably in later versions of the standard.

          }
      }
  }

  public interface IInputItem : IExchangeItemILinkableComponent
  {
      IMatrixLinkableComponentStatus ValuesStatus { get; set; }
  }

  public interface IOutputItem : IExchangeItemvoid Initialize();
  {
    void Validate();
 IMatrix Values { get; }
 void }Update();

  public interface IMatrix : IList
  {void Finish();
      intIList<IInputItem> RowsInputItems { get; }

      intIList<IOutputItem> ColumnsOutputItems { get; }

      objectbool GetValue(int row, int column);CascadeUpdateCallsDisabled { get; set; }

      void SetValue(object value, int row, int column);

// Suggestion: ask for specific values: e.g. filtered data
      object[,]IList GetValues(int startRow, int endRow, int startColumn, int endColumnIInputExchangeItem query);

      void SetValues(object[,] values, int startRow, int endRow, int startColumn, int endColumn);
  }

5. Release 2.0 plan

5.1. Documentation / basic / changes

We will identify the parts of the Standard that are quite stable by now. These Items are:

• IValueDefinition and all related interfaces/enumerations
• IElementSet and related enumerations
• ITimeSet / ITime

This means that effectively the only interfaces not to be documented directly are:

• ILinkableComponent
• IExchangeItem and its descendents.

Once the documentation of the more stable items is complete, we will check what the documentation will look like in the Object Browser, Enterprise Architect, and in Doxygen.

Steps to take before we can invite external reviewers to have a look at things:

• Action: Johan will take the lead in gathering reviewers (all of us have to think of names).
• Action: Rob B. will write a 2 page document on what are the main differences between 1.4 and 2.0.
• Action: All: cleanup all code in 2.0 from code which is not relevant anymore (left from 1.4). This is including unit and integration tests.
• Action: All of us will update the documentation of the interfaces, properties and methods whereever and whenever possible
• Action: On july 10th, Standa will tag a version, generate EA-documentation, and inform the reviewers.

5.2. Alpha release

...

}

1. Gena's suggestion for 2D return type (see below)
   Discussion/Conclusion: Not to be included in the standard 2.0. Could be used in the backbone, and probably in later versions of the standard.

  public interface IInputItem : IExchangeItem
  {
      IMatrix Values { get; set; }
  }

  public interface IOutputItem : IExchangeItem
  {
      IMatrix Values { get; }
  }

  public interface IMatrix : IList
  {
      int Rows { get; }

      int Columns { get; }

      object GetValue(int row, int column);

      void SetValue(object value, int row, int column);

      object[,] GetValues(int startRow, int endRow, int startColumn, int endColumn);

      void SetValues(object[,] values, int startRow, int endRow, int startColumn, int endColumn);
  }

5. Release 2.0 plan

5.1. Documentation / basic / changes

We will identify the parts of the Standard that are quite stable by now. These Items are:

• IValueDefinition and all related interfaces/enumerations
• IElementSet and related enumerations
• ITimeSet / ITime

This means that effectively the only interfaces not to be documented directly are:

• ILinkableComponent
• IExchangeItem and its descendents.

Once the documentation of the more stable items is complete, we will check what the documentation will look like in the Object Browser, Enterprise Architect, and in Doxygen.

Steps to take before we can invite external reviewers to have a look at things:

• Action: Johan will take the lead in gathering reviewers (all of us have to think of names).
• Action: Rob B. will write a 2 page document on what are the main differences between 1.4 and 2.0.
• Action: All: cleanup all code in 2.0 from code which is not relevant anymore (left from 1.4). This is including unit and integration tests.
• Action: All of us will update the documentation of the interfaces, properties and methods whereever and whenever possible
• Action: On july 10th, Standa will tag a version, generate EA-documentation, and inform the reviewers.

5.2. Alpha release

The result of this meeting is a candidate for the alpha release.
In the weeks to come, every Oatc member can plead for minor adjustments. If the Oatc agrees to the adjustment, it will be incorporated in the final alpha release. The last day for these changes will be July 2 ^nd, because:
The alpha release will be produced on Friday July 3 ^th, so it can be presented on the July 4 ^th.

On the page Version 2.0 Alpha We will keep track of:

• the opinions and comments on the standard
• the results of various tests
• etc.

5.3. External review and further migration of models

The external reviewers can start to do their work from Monday July 6 ^th on.
They will be asked to submit their remarks before September 1 ^st.

5.4. Migration of commercial models and documentation

...

Has not been discussed.

6. OATC Procedures

7. Miscellaneous issues

During the various discussion some things came up as may useful for, or even strongly recommened to be in version 3.0.
We will keep track of a wish list for version 3.0.

7.1 SourceForge clean up

Recently, I checked out the entire OpenMI source forge repository. This took forever, the size of the whole repository is 4.2GB. From this, 3.8GB is located in directories called "Wrappers", which is mainly code and data from HEC, RAS, CUAHI and MODFLOW. Long time ago we made a folder on the OpenMI source forge called MyOpenSource. The idea behind this directory was to have a place where people could put some code, that did not fit into the SDK, but still could be useful for OpenMI developers. Placing an entire model, data and binary files there is in my opinion too much. It is annoying to have so long download times when checking out and it may also add to some confusion, that the OpenMI repository mainly consists of various wrappers. My suggestion is to ask those responsible for the code in the wrappers directories to make their own repositories on source forge, where after we can remove all these files from the OpenMI repository. In order to make sure that people know about these important wrapper developments we could make a page on the wiki with a short description of the various projects and link to the location of the code.
Kind regards
Jan Gregersen

Discussion/Conclusion: Gena will have a session with the Hec-Ras and Modflow developers at the beginning of july. Most propably their developments will be moved out of the current repository.
Action Gena will take care that, once this is done, the OpenMI sourgeforge project will contain a reference to the Hec-Ras and Modflow developments.
Comment by Jan: Thanks

7.2. September OATC meeting in Hamburg

...

• Do the OATC members agree with a public talk?
• Aim: Spreading the OpenMI in Germany
• Target group: Developers
• Tuesday afternoon, 9th of September

...

All tasks are handled by sourceForge. GOTO: OpenMI Tasks on source forge

They have not been reviewed at this meeting.

9. Any other business

No other business.