AMOIS and AMFIS Discussion 2026 07 20 - team-sx/iwxxm-sx GitHub Wiki

Details

2026-Jul-20, 06:00-07:00 UTC, Webex

Agenda

  1. Alignment of IWXXM WxObject model with ISO 19156:2023 OMS standard concepts (see the Wiki page prepared by Ilkka Rinne)
    • Questions by Choy:
      1. The intention of having the WxObject model is to have a generic container for meteorological (as well as some related but non-meteorological) information. We may need to determine whether the concept of OMS is going to become the dominating concept of the model (like GML the vocabulary is centered on geospatial aspect of the subject to be described), which means all things being described or their observable outcomes can be measured directly.
      2. "... typically the flight pilots trust the official aviation weather observations and forecasts to contain the best available weather information available implicitly, and thus do not need the consider the details on how particular weather observations or forecasts were made, which sensors or procedures were used..." I would say yes and no; pilots definitely wants to know the most fit-for-purpose information. This "best information" is used to be provided directly from the information provider, but the trend is to allow the end user (or may be the tools they are using) to have flexibility to choose the "right kind of information" (in terms of granularity, averaging period, probability of occurrence, etc.). In that case certain kind of metadata may be required.
      3. "... For observations describing the wind conditions near a specific runway landing zone, ..., and the location of the sensor in relation to the runway may not need to be modelled using a separate Deployment and Host (multi-sensor plaftorm etc.) concepts..." In a recent discussion with MRAD members they have a strong desire to provide sensors data to let the users choose the best one for their purpose, which should also mean that they need to deal with whether a sensor is good to represent a certain coverage. I am not comfortable with this arrangement as the connection between sensor and the coverages they are representing has to be provided by the information producers who should have the best knowledge of the situation.
      4. "Modelling observations with more that one observed property" I think this is interesting, but regarding the complexity...

Notes

  1. Ilkka's wiki page has provide valuable insight into aligning IWXXM with concepts of this OGC standard. There are a few observations though:
    1. OM&S is observation first and then it can provide an application of such observation. IWXXM is the other way round; it provides information of a weather phenomenon of a certain coverage in which direct observation may or may not be possible. Usually this information is "inferred" from some real measurements (e.g. TDZ wind is represented by wind measurements next to the runway at about 130m from the runway centre line). Current the latter is not explicitly indicated but in IWXXM it may be able to be included as optional item to where the "inferred" information is coming from.
    2. Such arrangement for IWXXM as well as it TAC predecessor is based on the consumers' requirement of "products" - they care about TDZ wind instead of its proxy. Therefore it will be inconvenient for software to search and extract TDZ wind described deep in an OM&S representation. Choy mentioned that IWXXM 2 or before was based on O&M and this design had created nested structure which is not easy to be consumed.
    3. Applying OM&S concept inside out for IWXXM, i.e. providing properties and optionally make reference to their real observations, is interesting; it may involve mentioning relevant data multiple times. Having said that, some concepts like SamplingProcedure in OM&S may be worth considering as this extra metadata gives the opportunity for the producer to provide data out of the standard provision (e.g. averaging period beyond 2 and 10 minutes).

Next Meeting

TBC

Attendees

  • BL Choy (HKO)
  • Dirk Zinkhan (DWD)
  • Ilkka Rinne (FMI)