BIPM Perspectives 13 th 14 th October 2015 Dr Martin Milton BIPM Director
CMC distribution between DIs and NMIs, physical Physical CMCs: 16 % DIs 1000 Number of CMCs 800 600 400 DIs NMIs % CMCs Area by DIs Physical 16 Chemistry 23 Ionizing 34 radiation 200 0 Russian Federation Germany United States of America United Kingdom Canada France Netherlands China Italy Sweden Mexico Korea (Republic of) Turkey Brazil South Africa Spain Finland Japan Georgia Czech Republic Chinese Taipei Switzerland Hungary Singapore India Slovakia 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 www.bipm.org Country or Organization Macedonia (fmr Yug. Rep. of) Poland Bosnia and Herzegovina Albania Estonia 2
CMC distribution between DIs and NMIs, chemistry Chemistry CMCs: 23 % DIs 1000 Number of CMCs 800 600 400 DIs NMIs % CMCs Area by DIs Physical 16 Chemistry 23 Ionizing 34 radiation 200 0 www.bipm.org United States of America China Russian Federation Germany Korea (Republic of) Japan United Kingdom Mexico Netherlands Canada France IRMM Brazil Australia Slovakia Turkey Thailand Hong Kong (China) South Africa Argentina Poland Czech Republic Hungary Spain Ukraine Portugal Singapore Belarus Italy Romania Slovenia Switzerland Greece Denmark Peru Austria Finland Bulgaria Chinese Taipei Egypt Sweden Bosnia and Herzegovina India Kazakhstan Kenya Slovenia Country or organizaton 3
CMC distribution between DIs and NMIs, ionizing radiation Ionizing Radiation CMCs: 34 % DIs Number of CMCs 600 500 400 300 200 DIs NMIs % CMCs Area by DIs Physical 16 Chemistry 23 Ionizing 34 radiation 100 0 United States of America Russian Federation www.bipm.org Germany France Japan Korea (Republic of) China United Kingdom Austria Spain Czech Republic Brazil IRMM Hungary Italy Chinese Taipei Netherlands Cuba Slovakia Poland Belarus Australia Argentina Mexico Portugal Romania Country or Organization South Africa Greece Finland Switzerland Bulgaria Sweden IAEA Norway Malaysia Ukraine Canada Denmark Turkey Egypt 4
Number of CMCs per Key Comparison 10 countries with largest number of CMCs: 12 10 Number of CMCs per KC, country/organization Countries with at least 20 CMCs and 8 KCs Country CMCs/KC United States 5.62 Russia 5.74 Germany 3.24 China 4.25 United Kingdom 3.15 Korea 3.46 Japan 2.82 France 2.45 Netherlands 4.27 Mexico 4.34 CMC/KCs 8 6 4 2 0 Average CMCs/KC: 3.3 CMCs/KCs Argentina Australia Austria Belarus* Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Canada Chile China Chinese Taipei* Costa Rica* Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Egypt Finland France 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 Spain Sweden Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine* United Kingdom United States Uruguay Viet Nam* www.bipm.org Member States of the BIPM, Associates of the CGPM (*), International Organizations (**) 5
Incomplete comparisons started > 5 years ago By RMO or CIPM (CCs) Uncompleted comparisons > 5 yrs By metrology area Uncompleted comparisons > 5 yrs 40 50 Number of comparsions 30 20 10 SCs KCs Number of comparsions 40 30 20 10 SCs KCs 0 AFRIMETS APMP COOMET EURAMET SIM CIPM www.bipm.org RMO or CIPM Overall, 10 % are incomplete Key: 82 (out of 918) Supplementary: 48 (out of 438) 0 AUV EM L M PR QM RI T TF Metrology Area 6
Towards KCDB 2.0 The BIPM reflected on how the next generation of the KCDB could be featured FLEXIBILITY You are here IMPROVED SEARCH CMC WEB SUPPORT SQL or nosql Save time and make it easier OPEN DATA Google search 7
Towards KCDB 2.0 Pros-and-cons were weighted against each other, such as... FLEXIBILITY OF DATABASE RESTRAINTS ON INPUT COMPLEXITY OF EXPLOITATION TARGETED DEGREE OF QUALITY OF THE DATA BASE DEGREE OF AUTOMATIC MANAGEMENT and PUSHING PROBLEMS UP-STREAM www.bipm.org 8
Towards KCDB 2.0 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
Towards KCDB 2.0 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
Towards KCDB 2.0 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