The meeting was called to order at 2:00 Eastern time. There were 18 attendees, listed below.
The minutes of the 25 October meeting were reviewed and approved as posted on the web site.
I reviewed our plans on Oct 17 with the ISO Change Management Board, which is the group within ISO responsible for overall scheduling and coordination of standards proposals within the area of Engineering Analysis Tools. I reviewed the current state, and indicated we were planning to present both a New Work Item (Gate 2) and a Committee Draft (Gate 3) at, hopefully, the next meeting in February. That's an aggressive date, and it easily could slip to the following meeting in June. The review generally focused on the scope of the proposed standard, the plans for the next year, and the current degree of acceptance of the CGNS starting point. This review went well, and the Chair remarked that we were especially well prepared.
In meetings of the ISO Working Group for Engineering Analysis on Oct 16-19, there were no issues with the current content, and it looks like Sweden (Volvo) is back on board as a supporter. However, the Chair of this Working Group (Keith Hunten, Lockheed Martin, Fort Worth) expressed an opinion that all the engineering analysis standards should be grouped in one AP, and that we should not be planning on a separate AP. This is a philosophical point, and as we are the second standard to come forward in this area we are the lightning rod for resolution of this organizational issue.
Up to now, ISO standards all use ASCII data storage. Obviously, that is impractical for CFD data. Therefore, we will have to take on the additional task of defining and "selling" an agreed ISO standard mechanism for binary data storage. CGNS-ADF obviously is an attractive answer, but there is a lot of interest in the ISO community in HDF. I am trying to increase my knowledge of HDF now. If any members of this CGNS committee have detailed knowledge of HDF, I would appreciate getting your comments as to its strengths and weaknesses in storing CFD data. ISO will insist on a single approach to binary storage for any application, so I am concerned that achieving consensus on this point could end up being a significant diversion of our effort.
We will hold a four-day meeting in Seattle, Dec 11-14, to continue the development of the ISO standard for fluid dynamics and associated sub-elements such as mathematical representations and binary storage. Keith Hunten will attend, and we hope to finally resolve all issues associated with the organization and structure of this standard. The Boeing preference is to have a stand-alone AP for fluid dynamics, but the overarching goal is to get all parties to agree on the course. Without consensus as to how the fluid dynamics standard relates to other ISO standards, we cannot expect to pass Gate 3. We are bringing in a consultant from UK (David Leal), with whom we have worked before, to help us with details of the structure and content of the actual written standard. The chief Boeing information modeler, Peter Wilson, will participate in all four days, as I will. Wilson, by the way, has written a number of books on ISO standards and information modeling (you can review his books at Amazon.Com). As an outcome, at the end of the meeting we expect to have agreement among all parties as to how the standard will be organized, and we expect to make substantial progress in the actual definition and documentation of the standard. I will report on the progress at the meeting of the CGNS committee in Reno, in January.
There was some discussion, initiated by Michel Delanaye, on
the need to define the binary format for the data. There was
general consensus that the CGNS committee should be primarily
concerned with the intellectual content of the data - i.e. the SIDS
information. The actual implementation and representation in binary
format may evolve as the technology evolves (e.g. Oracle database,
HDF, XML, others). The CGNS committee does not have the expertise
to define the binary standard, and we do not wish to take a stand
on what the appropriate binary format should be. However, it is
recognized that ISO does not currently support binary data, and
ASCII data is not viable for CFD data. Thus the ISO working group
may be forced to define a standard, and this definition could hold
up adoption of the AP on Fluid Dynamics. We would like to encourage
the ISO working group, but keep the focus of the CGNS committee on
the SIDS content.
Other extensions are in implementation for V2, or
preparation. Diane will try to get the Chemistry extension
implemented for V2, but it may slip beyond the freeze date. There
is also a new proposal for UserDefinedArrays which would
be valid children of many nodes. We will discuss these issues at
the January meeting.
|Chris Rumsey||NASA Langley|
|Charlie Towne||NASA Glenn|
|Diane Poirier||ICEM CFD Engineering|
|Francis Enomoto||NASA Ames|
|David Edwards||Intelligent Light|
|Doug McCarthy||Boeing Commercial|
|Todd Michal||Boeing Phantom Works|
|Theresa Babrauckas||NASA Glenn|
|Bill Jones||NASA Langley|
|Armen Darian||Boeing Space|