BIPM Perspectives 13 th – 14 th October 2015 Dr Martin Milton BIPM Director
Number of CMCs CMC distribution between DIs and NMIs, physical www.bipm.org 1000 200 400 600 800 0 Russian Federation Germany United States of America United Kingdom Canada France Netherlands China Italy NMIs DIs Sweden Mexico Korea (Republic of) Turkey Brazil South Africa Spain Finland Japan Georgia Czech Republic Chinese Taipei Switzerland Hungary Singapore India Slovakia Physical CMCs: 16 % DIs Country or Organization Uruguay Argentina Slovenia Ukraine Denmark Austria Hong Kong (China) Bulgaria New Zealand Australia Romania Belarus Serbia Thailand Greece Ireland Portugal Costa Rica Norway Malaysia Peru Croatia Lithuania Indonesia Belgium Latvia Kazakhstan Chile Moldova (Republic of) Cuba Panama Egypt Viet Nam Grenada Paraguay Jamaica Philippines Ecuador Colombia Macedonia (fmr Yug. Rep. of) Poland Bosnia and Herzegovina Albania Estonia radiation Ionizing Chemistry 23 Physical Area % CMCs 34 16 by DIs 2
CMC distribution between DIs and NMIs, chemistry www.bipm.org Number of CMCs 1000 200 400 600 800 0 United States of America China Russian Federation Germany Korea (Republic of) Japan United Kingdom Mexico Netherlands Canada France IRMM Brazil Australia Slovakia Turkey Thailand Chemistry CMCs: 23 % DIs Hong Kong (China) South Africa Country or organizaton Argentina Poland Czech Republic Hungary Spain Ukraine Portugal Singapore Belarus Italy Romania Slovenia Switzerland Greece Denmark Peru Austria NMIs DIs Finland Bulgaria Chinese Taipei Egypt Sweden Bosnia and Herzegovina India Kazakhstan Kenya Slovenia radiation Ionizing Chemistry 23 Physical Area % CMCs 34 16 by DIs 3
CMC distribution between DIs and NMIs, ionizing radiation Number of CMCs www.bipm.org 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 United States of America Russian Federation Germany France Japan Korea (Republic of) China NMIs DIs United Kingdom Austria Spain Czech Republic Brazil Ionizing Radiation CMCs: 34 % DIs IRMM Hungary Italy Chinese Taipei Country or Organization Netherlands Cuba Slovakia Poland Belarus Australia Argentina Mexico Portugal Romania South Africa Greece Finland Switzerland Bulgaria Sweden IAEA Norway Malaysia Ukraine Canada Denmark Turkey Egypt radiation Ionizing Chemistry 23 Physical Area % CMCs 34 16 by DIs 4
Mexico Netherlands France Japan Korea United Kingdom China Germany Russia United States Number of CMCs per Key Comparison www.bipm.org 10 countries with largest Country number of CMCs: CMCs/KC 4.34 4.27 2.45 2.82 3.46 3.15 4.25 3.24 5.74 5.62 CMC/KCs 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 Argentina Australia Austria Belarus* Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Average CMCs/KC: 3.3 Canada Member States of the BIPM, Associates of the CGPM (*), International Organizations (**) Chile China Chinese Taipei* Costa Rica* Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Egypt Number of CMCs per KC, country/organization Finland France Countries with at least 20 CMCs and 8 KCs Germany Greece Hong Kong, China* Hungary IAEA** India Indonesia Ireland IRMM** Italy Jamaica* Japan Kazakhstan Korea Latvia* Lithuania* Malaysia Mexico Netherlands, The New-Zealand Norway Panama* Peru* Philippines* Poland Portugal Romania Russia Serbia Singapore Slovakia Slovenia* South Africa CMCs/KCs Spain Sweden Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine* United Kingdom United States Uruguay Viet Nam* 5
Incomplete comparisons started > 5 years ago By RMO or CIPM (CCs) By metrology area Uncompleted comparisons > 5 yrs Uncompleted comparisons > 5 yrs 40 50 SCs SCs KCs Number of comparsions Number of comparsions 40 KCs 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 AUV EM L M PR QM RI T TF AFRIMETS APMP COOMET EURAMET SIM CIPM Metrology Area RMO or CIPM Overall, 10 % are incomplete Key: 82 (out of 918) • Supplementary: 48 (out of 438) • www.bipm.org 6
Towards KCDB 2.0 The BIPM reflected on how the next generation of the KCDB could be featured… FLEXIBILITY IMPROVED SEARCH SQL or noSQL You ou are here re… Save time and make it easier CMC WEB SUPPORT OPEN DATA Google search 7
Towards KCDB 2.0 Pros-and-cons were weighted against each other, such as ... FLEXIBILITY COMPLEXITY OF OF DATABASE EXPLOITATION PUSHING DEGREE OF PROBLEMS AUTOMATIC UP-STREAM MANAGEMENT TARGETED DEGREE OF QUALITY OF RESTRAINTS … and THE DATA ON INPUT BASE www.bipm.org 8
2.0 Towards KCDB 2.0 2 main scenarios were examined: Scenario 1 Minimum investment required to maintain the KCDB • with the option to improve the graphical interface • Scenario 2 Modernized technology • Creation of a web platform for CMC submission and review • Improved possibility for exploiting data • 9
2.0 Towards KCDB 2.0 Estimated cost Scenario 1 110 k€ Minimum investment required to maintain the KCDB • with the option to improve the graphical interface +30 k€ • Scenario 2 +40 k€ Modernized technology • Creation of a web platform for CMC submission and review • Improved possibility for exploiting data • 10
2.0 Towards KCDB 2.0 Future possible options were also studied: Web Content Accessability (WCAG 2.0) • Options on hosting • Improved « hits » when web searching for KCBD contents • Extraction of XML data, towards Open Data possibilities • Syndication, i.e. the possibility to get automatic information on KCDB contents • Applications for smartphone or tablet • 11
Summary 12
13
Summary The KCDB (software) must be replaced. We have employed an expert soft and database consultant – Don’t want to pre-empt the review – Don’t want to jeopardise the legacy invetsment in 1400 comparisons and 24,000 CMCs – Do want to consider new technologies. Open to prepare options with the Working Group. 14
Recommend
More recommend
