1. The 900-Pound Gorilla How STORET Affects the Development of Other Data Management Tools Gerald Burnette HydroGeoLogic, Inc. (865) 995-9953 www.hgl.com

2. This Story Begins in an Earlier Time The Corps of Engineers contracted for the development of a new surface water quality data management system. Why? Because problems with the system they were currently using were causing missed deadlines, delays, and other frustrations.

3. Design Goals of the New System  Update the user interface  Improve performance and data access  Fix problems with the data model  Add biological sampling capabilities  Provide compatibility with GIS  Enhance graphics and reporting functions …and export data to STORET

4. The DASLER System Data Management Interface GIS Interface Plotting Utilities Data Management and Analysis System for Lakes, Estuaries, and Rivers

5. DASLER and STORET: Worlds Apart? “DASLER Is from Mars, STORET Is from Venus” (with apologies to John Gray) Data Management and Analysis System for Lakes, Estuaries, and Rivers

6. Connecting DASLER to (Legacy) STORET Data Management and Analysis System for Lakes, Estuaries, and Rivers Approximately 1% of DASLER code devoted to connecting to STORET. (Text files)

7. New STORET is Introduced Data Management and Analysis System for Lakes, Estuaries, and Rivers The connection between DASLER and STORET is broken.

8. What to Do? Meeting of the interested Corps parties held in Nashville. Discussion of differences between DASLER data model and STORET data model.

9. Program Similarities  Objectives were the same  Structures were similar (locations, characteristics, samples, results)  Common data pool (characteristics, methods, etc.)

10. Program Differences DASLERSTORET  More metadata requirements  Configuration required  Station visits and trips  Explicit procedure references  Gear configuration information  Less metadata requirements  “Pre-configured”  Sampling events only  Procedures and gear information tied to collection method field

11. Why the Differences? To understand why DASLER and STORET are different, you need only look at the target audiences. STORET: much larger user base, with vastly different backgrounds and procedures DASLER: relatively small number of users, with common backgrounds and procedures

12. Consensus of the Meeting The only option – if connection to STORET is to be re-established – is to modify DASLER. Plan developed for altering DASLER to meet new STORET requirements. Construction of the new version began in February 2001.

13. Changes to DASLER  Database changes – to enforce some of the same metadata requirements found in STORET  User interface changes – to capture some of the additional information  Export routines – to send data to STORET via SIM

14. Connection Re-established Data Management and Analysis System for Lakes, Estuaries, and Rivers Now, approximately 5% of DASLER code devoted to connecting to STORET. (SIM)

15. DASLER User Base Expands

16. Expanded User Base Produces Unexpected Side Effect Data Management and Analysis System for Lakes, Estuaries, and Rivers Data Management and Analysis System for Lakes, Estuaries, and Rivers Data Management and Analysis System for Lakes, Estuaries, and Rivers DASLER-CEDASLER-X “Two DASLERs diverged in a yellow wood…” (with apologies to Robert Frost)

17. DASLER-X Reaches Wider Audience Data Management and Analysis System for Lakes, Estuaries, and Rivers Approximately 15% of DASLER-X code devoted to connecting to STORET. (SIM)

18. Wider Audience Requires More Changes  Addition of project concept with support tables  Personnel information, including training  Location and parameter aliases  Support for continuous monitoring data  More “special” entries for STORET exports As the audience expands, the amount of effort spent making DASLER compatible with STORET increases.

19. A Good Thing or A Bad Thing? Good  More robust data model  Broader applicability  Increased client base  Increased development time  Requires more support  Constant need to monitor STORET developments Bad

20. Conclusions STORET has had a major influence on development efforts. This influence has a measurable effect on project budget. Despite these factors, maintaining compatibility with STORET is a worthwhile goal that has many positive outcomes.