1 / 17

Network Exchange Challenge Grant

Network Exchange Challenge Grant. UIC Class II Data Flow: Montana, Mississippi, Alaska, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, and California April 25, 2007 Mark Layne/ALL Consulting. Agenda. Grant & IPT Current Status Experience of Process Involved States Data Management Systems (RBDMS)

dfullmer
Télécharger la présentation

Network Exchange Challenge Grant

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Network Exchange Challenge Grant UIC Class II Data Flow:Montana, Mississippi, Alaska, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, and California April 25, 2007 Mark Layne/ALL Consulting

  2. Agenda • Grant & IPT • Current Status • Experience of Process • Involved States Data Management Systems (RBDMS) • Central Project Node • Application Development • Future

  3. Grant & State IPT • Class II Primacy States • Challenge Grant to the State of Montana – Board of Oil and Gas Conservation (Members: MT, AK, CA, NE, ND, UT & MS) • MBOGC Chosen due to Favorable State Contract Management (Low Overhead) • Included two contractors – GWPC and ALL Consulting • Formed own IPT Group and Joined EPA’s • GWPC – Management of Outreach, IPT and Node Funds • ALL Consulting – Application Development & Outreach

  4. Current Status • MT, AK, MS, NE, ND, UT – Logical Mapping Completed • CA – In process of Development of DMS through separate effort (MS & OK) • Montana – Focus as a test state • Physical Mapping, XML, In Application Development • Mississippi – Next for Physical Mapping

  5. Experience of Process • Challenges – Submission of UIC Summary Data (How to use to gain National Picture) • Concerns over how data to be interpreted • Willing to meet and discuss concerns and try to address • States decided to apply for Grant so that they could have cooperative effort with the Network Exchange effort • Consultants have acted as Middle Men • Good working with IPT and having access to process

  6. States Data Management Systems • Risk Based Data Management System (RBDMS) • Application managed by the GWPC and State Stakeholders Committee • DOE Top 100 projects (20th Century) • Current in-place in 22 Oil & Gas States and with some success in other Classes of UIC Wells • Core set of common UIC datasets • UIC Data Schema partially based on RBDMS

  7. Central Node • Part of Proposal to House Central Node at GWPC for member States to Submit to • States may have existing nodes but not be located in same cities • Different Network configurations • Different Platform • Multiple Departments • Control and make uniform

  8. Application Development • Platform • Validation Local • Review Data Payload • Generate Payload & Test • Release Data to EPA

  9. Application Development: Platform • SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2005 • Mimic National UIC DB • Visual Studio Development 2005 • C # Language • WinForms Application • Enterprise Library • Issues • Validation WSE 2.0 vs WSE 3.0 Protocols • How to validate through own Node?

  10. Application Development: Data

  11. Application Development: Validation Local • Validate Local Data for Accuracy (RBDMS) • Validation Tool for SQL Server Databases • Provides a means for Program Managers to review their data in familiar format

  12. Application Development: Import and Validate

  13. Application Development: Validate Report

  14. Application Development: Review Payload • Provide for ability to review extracted data • Provide ability to filter non-validated data from payload

  15. Application Development: Payload – Current Development • Develop XML Payload • Done • Schematron • Review Schematron Validation (Repeat) • Review at UIC Data Store • Release Payload Dataset as Validated Submission

  16. Future • Immediate: • Discussion with Exchange Network Guru’s on Authentication Processes • Complete Pilot of MT for IPT workgroup • Complete Physical Mapping of MS • Application available to all UIC Agencies and other Network Exchange members if desired • Discussion on being 2.0 Node?

  17. Contact Information Mark Layne, Ph.D., P.E. ALL Consulting mlayne@all-llc.com www.all-llc.com Questions

More Related