BIPM Perspectives 13 th 14 th October 2015 Dr Martin Milton BIPM - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

BIPM Perspectives

13th – 14th October 2015

Dr Martin Milton

BIPM Director

2 www.bipm.org

CMC distribution between DIs and NMIs, physical

200 400 600 800 1000 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 Macedonia (fmr Yug. Rep. of) Poland Bosnia and Herzegovina Albania Estonia

Number of CMCs Country or Organization

Physical CMCs: 16 % DIs

DIs NMIs

% CMCs Area by DIs Physical 16 Chemistry 23 Ionizing 34 radiation

3 www.bipm.org

CMC distribution between DIs and NMIs, chemistry

200 400 600 800 1000 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

Number of CMCs Country or organizaton

Chemistry CMCs: 23 % DIs

DIs NMIs

% CMCs Area by DIs Physical 16 Chemistry 23 Ionizing 34 radiation

4 www.bipm.org

CMC distribution between DIs and NMIs, ionizing radiation

100 200 300 400 500 600

United States of America Russian Federation 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 South Africa Greece Finland Switzerland Bulgaria Sweden IAEA Norway Malaysia Ukraine Canada Denmark Turkey Egypt

Number of CMCs

Country or Organization

Ionizing Radiation CMCs: 34 % DIs

DIs NMIs

% CMCs Area by DIs Physical 16 Chemistry 23 Ionizing 34 radiation

5 www.bipm.org

Number of CMCs per Key Comparison

2 4 6 8 10 12

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*

CMC/KCs

Member States of the BIPM, Associates of the CGPM (*), International Organizations (**)

Number of CMCs per KC, country/organization Countries with at least 20 CMCs and 8 KCs

CMCs/KCs Average CMCs/KC: 3.3

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

10 countries with largest number of CMCs:

6 www.bipm.org

Incomplete comparisons started > 5 years ago

10 20 30 40 AFRIMETS APMP COOMET EURAMET SIM CIPM

Number of comparsions RMO or CIPM Uncompleted comparisons > 5 yrs

SCs KCs

10 20 30 40 50 AUV EM L M PR QM RI T TF

Number of comparsions Metrology Area Uncompleted comparisons > 5 yrs

SCs KCs

Overall, 10 % are incomplete

• Key: 82 (out of 918)
• Supplementary: 48 (out of 438)

By RMO or CIPM (CCs) By metrology area

7

Towards KCDB 2.0

The BIPM reflected on how the next generation of the KCDB could be featured…

You

• u are here

re…

SQL or noSQL

Google search

OPEN DATA

Save time and make it easier CMC WEB SUPPORT IMPROVED SEARCH FLEXIBILITY

8 www.bipm.org

Towards KCDB 2.0

DEGREE OF AUTOMATIC MANAGEMENT

PUSHING PROBLEMS UP-STREAM

Pros-and-cons were weighted against each other, such as ...

COMPLEXITY OF EXPLOITATION FLEXIBILITY OF DATABASE

TARGETED DEGREE OF QUALITY OF THE DATA BASE RESTRAINTS ON INPUT

… and

9

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

2.0

10

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

2.0

11

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

2.0

12

Summary

13

14

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.

Summary