INAG MEETING: URSI GENERAL ASSEMBLY, LILLE, SEPTEMBER 1997

Two INAG Meetings were held. A short meeting was held to endorse the officers and a longer general meeting was also held to discuss issues that had arisen during the triennium. Because I was elected Vice Chair of Commission G, I had to stand down as Chair of INAG. I proposed Ray Conkright, of WDCA for STP, USA, as the new Chair of INAG and this was accepted by the meeting. I also proposed INAG would have two Vice Chairs and I was elected as one of these, together with Dr Jean-Claude Jodogne of Belgium as the second vice chair.

In my general report on the Working Group activities during the last triennium I made the following points. Over the last triennium the membership of INAG has remained constant, around 240 people with about 300 people on the email list. There were two INAG Meetings during the triennium and two bulletins were published as well as the UAG report produced from the Kyoto meeting session. The main issue raised during the triennium related to scaled parameters and is discussed below. Over the next three to six years the main issues are: establishing an INAG WWW homepage; build on the current email list for rapid communications and, most important, migrate to the digital environment without losing the integrity many correctly associate with manually scaled parameters.

The two main topics discussed at the second INAG meeting was: data exchange and scaled parameters.

Digital data is easier to exchange than the older analogue data, but, as Ray Conkright has pointed out, "Now that it is easier than ever to exchange data, we are getting less exchanged." Much of the current data exchanged passes through IUWDS (now ISES - International Space Environment Services) and arises from the USAF/DISS network. Ray pointed out, in a message to the meeting, that the WDC-A interactive data server, SPIDR, had little or no data from many locations e.g. no British data, little French data. This question was discussed at the INAG meeting. The British had no knowledge of the problem and promised to look into it and the French felt that while there may be a security issue with the real time data, they would probably be happy to supply archive data.

These appeared to be indicative of a general problem with data exchange. Several possible reasons were offered for the fall off in data exchanged. For instance, what are the problems associated with supplying data? Based on local experience, preparing useful archive data has several restraints: processing costs more; resources (people who know how) are scarce and available real-time data may make archive data less of an imperative. There have also been problems sending data to other groups: problems with the media (IPS is still having major problems exchanging data with the Russians); loss of autonomy (others use the data and offer no credit or insight into how they use it); and it costs money to send data to other locations. One suggestion was that ownership of current data should be protected and not just acknowledged. For instance, like other data sets, data should belong to the originating agency for the first two to five years. Pal Bencze pointed out that most of us know where data is used and therefore it is valuable to keep collecting it. However, it is worthwhile to once more remind authors that sending reprints to the stations whose data they use assists in defending the future of the station. To make this work, an up to date station address list is required. It is also important to remind authors to reference the Boulder CD-ROM. Others wondered whether people putting data into WDCA for STP would receive a free copy of the CD-ROM of data. There is also the almost trivial problem of not knowing if data reached its destination because often there is no feedback. There was general agreement that an acknowledgment that data has been received by WDCs is well worthwhile. People present agreed that some subset of these issues affected data supply.

What are the costs of losing WDC involvement? Has the old WDC philosophy gone? Over a decade ago, data were often regarded as a currency that could be banked with the WDC. In the mid-eighties, as data sets became more complex and far more expensive to prepare and distribute (for instance, incoherent scatter data, satellite and rocket data) a panel established to offer guidance on data centers proposed that being aware of where data could be obtained should be more important than actually holding data. The WDC role would be to help maintain a widely distributed data archive. Since scaled ionospheric data form a much smaller, labour intensive data set, it isn't clear this concept should apply. On the other hand, all data sets are vulnerable to funding pressures on Organisations so that ensuring the long-term survival of these data is better achieved through widely dispersed archiving. IPS has deliberately used the WDC as a back up for our data sets. How do others back up their long-term data? How easy is it for others to access this store?

How should data be made available: can WWW be compared with a CD-ROM? A CD-ROM comes as part of most children's games computers now. Consequently, the CD-ROM is almost a defacto standard for digital exchange media. WWW, on the other hand, although it can be more immediate, requires a large investment in time which can be greater for some countries than others. While WWW is great for browsing, a CD-ROM archive is far more appealing. Most agreed that for archiving, the CD-ROM is easier. However, WWW is a significant advance for handling real time and near real time data and will therefore always be more immediate. A combination of these is therefore necessary.

This discussion on data access and exchange was strongly endorsed by Working Group 4 (Ionospheric Informatics) as well as all at this meeting. However, although the problems were aired, it is hard to see any substantial changes arising. It is probably worth setting up an address list of known ionosonde stations and then send out a questionnaire asking them about their ability to record digital ionograms. Those that can supply data would be asked how frequently they record these data and whether they would be willing to store them in a WDC.

After the INAG meeting in Boulder (INAG-61) a survey was made to gauge the support for scaled parameters. The main reason for this was that some digital ionosonde groups were developing new parameters and were running out of numbers for coding them. I carried out a large survey of all the parameters and published a preliminary report in the last INAG Bulletin. The idea behind this survey was to discover if it was possible to abandon some of the parameters and reuse some of the codes. A subordinate objective was to correct any misunderstandings that existed among the current codes.

Questionnaires that are too long get few responses, and the INAG questionnaire was not an exception. However, although there have been only 15 responses so far, these have represented a wide range of opinions and backgrounds. The results are therefore indicative.

First, the current standard scaled parameters were all well supported, although three (h'F, h'E and fmin) each had one respondent suggest they should be abandoned. Because of the large amount of data already collected for these parameters, this is not feasible, but it suggests a little more thought about their long-term value is warranted. Surprisingly, two non-standard parameters, fzF2 and fxF1, were also reasonably well supported. A few parameters received reasonable support and with a little effort, these could also have the status of standard parameters. Of these, the IPS range spread (R/S) and frequency spread (F/S) parameters were surprisingly successful. Even with the IPS questionnaire returns excluded, these two parameters were well supported. This is surprising, as at IPS we have been considering discontinuing their use. All other parameters received mixed support and some, especially the spread-F parameters (h'I, fmI and M(3000)I), were unpopular. Unfortunately, there was no time for a detailed discussion of each of the parameters. For instance, the strong opposition to spread-F parameters, yet good support for R/S and F/S was worth discussion. Better coding for the presence of spread F is an important issue.

The reasons for wanting various parameters were much broader than I first expected. For instance, one person said they used many of the less familiar parameters as part of HF modelling programs. Another rejected the same parameters because they had no value for communications. The obvious conclusion of the meeting was that because of broad support it is not possible to recycle any of the current codes. A suggestion that three figures be used instead of two was accepted but has since been replaced by a decision to use alphabetic as well as numeric characters (see later in this Bulletin). This means that past archives will remain consistent with future archives.

While experiences people have had licensing ionosondes was going to be discussed, time ran out and since an allied topic was the subject of a resolution before the Commission, it was not pursued. The possibility of a session sponsored by INAG was also mentioned, but there was no substantial for it.

Back to Bulletins index

Back to INAG-62 Contents page