ࡱ> 3 objbjCC l!!hhgl lll$`.`.`.P.$.[|//(///2;"T; `;YYYY<+ZZc[$^ `[lh;:@2;h;h;[@ //8 [@@@h; /l/Y@h;Y@6@AV lX/p/ 9b`.<W9Y[0[W8a>aX^@ INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION (OF UNESCO) ______________ WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION _________________JCOMM DATA MANAGEMENT COORDINATION GROUP THIRD SESSION (OSTEND, BELGIUM, 26-28 MARCH 2008)DMCG-III/Doc. 3 (4.III.2008) ______ ITEM: 3 ENGLISH ONLY report by the Chairperson of the DMCG (Submitted by J.R. Keeley) Summary and purpose of the document This document provides information on activities of the Chairperson of DMCG since the last meeting.  ACTION PROPOSED The Group will be invited to review the information contained in this report and comment as appropriate. ______________________ Appendix: The Proposed IODE / JCOMM Standards Process A. Draft TEXT for inclusion in the final report 3.3.1 The Chairperson reported that he had attended a number of meetings since the last DMCG meeting, including those from the other JCOMM Programme Areas as well as the sixth JCOMM Management Committee meeting. Of particular interest was a presentation to the WMO Executive Council working Group on WIGOS-WIS regarding a pilot project of JCOMM for WIGOS that will be discussed later in the meeting. 3.3.2 The Chairperson noted that he had worked on a number of different topics including completing the Data Management Plan, aspects of converting GTS reporting to BUFR, collaborations with IODE, preparations for CLIMAR-III and the Meta-T discussions. All of these are treated in the agenda for this meeting. 3.3.3 He noted that at the last IODE meeting, the Chairperson of the JCOMM DMCG was accepted as an Officer of IODE. This is important since the work carried out by ETDMP is shared with IODE and so management of their work plan is a joint responsibility. 3.3.4 At the 2007 OOPC meeting, he was approached by a panel member who remarked that there was no source of information about how data collected at sea could be inserted into the JCOMM and IODE data streams. As a result, a draft cookbook is in preparation that provides instructions for many kinds of data. Completion of this will require assistance from the OPA. 3.3.5 Finally, he noted that the DMPA web site has not yet been built. This is an important activity that will need to be addressed before JCOMM-III. It is treated agenda item 3.3. B. Background information 3.3.6 Meetings As Chairperson of DMCG, or representing JCOMM I attended the following meetings: JCOMM Services Coordination Group, Exeter, UK, 7-10 Nov, 2006 IODE-XIX, Trieste, Italy, 12-16 Mar, 2007 JCOMM Observations Coordination Group, Geneva, Switzerland, 23-25 Apr, 2007 Ocean Observations Panel on Climate (OOPC), Paris, France, 2-5 May, 2007 Ocean Biodiversity Informatics Conference, Dartmouth, Canada, 2-4 Oct, 2007 IODE Officers meeting, Ostend, Belgium, 27-30 Nov, 2007 JCOMM Management Committee meeting, 6th Session, Paris, France, 3-5 Dec, 2007 WMO EC Working Group on WIGOS-WIS, Geneva, Switzerland, 6-7 Dec, 2007 First IODE/JCOMM Standards Forum, Ostend, Belgium, 17-25 Jan, 2008 3.3.7 Data Management Strategy 3.3.7.1 This document was completed with the revisions that resulted from the DMCG-2 meeting. It was circulated for wider comment, those received and final changes made. It has been approved by the Co-presidents and will be prepared as a document to be presented at JCOMM-III. 3.3.7.2 An implementation plan that expands on the work needed to meet issues identified in the Strategy is partially complete. It is mostly a document for DMCG use to record progress and to identify what remains to be done. It is here that the actions identified at DMCG meetings are and will be recorded as well as what has been accomplished. A short form is found in Appendix A of document 9 and will be discussed under agenda item 9. 3.3.8 BUFR 3.3.8.1 DMCG-2 outlined three tasks for a BUFR task team that was partially formed at that meeting. In November, I initiated emails to start discussions and to try to find a suitable Chairperson. The tasks were: first to review and propose templates for data of interest to OPA groups; second, to bring Master Table 10 into conformance with WMO rules; and third, to look at ways to standardize the content across templates. The first task had mostly been tackled by the various groups of OPA and so we had little to do. 3.3.8.2 The second task, to make necessary changes in MT10 to bring it into compliance with present WMO rules, has not been started. 3.3.8.3 The third task, to standardize content has been started. This will be reported on in greater detail in another agenda item. It has become complicated by entanglements with the Meta-T discussions. 3.3.8.4 Work remains, therefore to complete steps 2 and 3 as outlined at DMCG-2. This would progress faster if a Chairperson could be found. 3.3.8.5 More detail is provided in another agenda item of this meeting. 3.3.9 Collaborations with IODE 3.3.9.1 JCOMM-II agreed that a representative of IODE be a member of the DMCG. At IODE-XIX in April 2007, the Chairperson of DMCG was appointed to be an IODE Officer. This completed the reciprocal arrangements. Because ETDMP is a jointly sponsored committee between IODE and JCOMM, this arrangement makes it possible to have discussions at both IODE and DMCG meetings on the activities of the expert team. 3.3.9.2 I also took part in the preparation of the IOC Data Strategy. This was presented to IOC Executive and endorsed in mid 2007. 3.3.9.3 Recently, I shared with a co-Chairperson of IODE the chairing of the First Session of the IODE/JCOMM Forum on Oceanographic Data Management and Exchange Standards. This meeting was held at the IODE Project Office in Oostende, Belgium from 21-25 January 2008. This meeting was organized with the financial assistance of the Flanders and United States governments. Its inception was partly in response to a task assigned to DMPA at JCOMM-II. 3.3.9.4 The Forum proved to be a successful meeting (the report is available from the IODE web pages) with results that include: About 20 participants from a wide variety of organizations. Participants developed an initial plan for managing a standards accreditation process for data management for IODE and JCOMM. The process will use existing expert teams and so should have no budget impacts The IODE Project Office will provide some web infrastructure. Participants agreed on adopting ISO standards for countries, time, and position. Participants agreed on a discovery metadata profile (ISO compliant), and some procedures for quality control of sea level, selected types of ocean profiles and waves. These ones will be used to test the certification process. 3.3.9.5 One of the major results of the meeting was to refocus activities of the ETDMP (already agreed to by IODE Officers) to manage the acceptance of standards. A draft description of the proposed process is contained in Appendix A of Document 9. Discussion will be handled under item 3.1 and ETDMP membership in 6.3. 3.3.9.6 A complete report of the meeting will be provided by Greg Reed in agenda item 3.1. 3.3.9.7 DMCG-2 agreed to provide documents to the IODE OceanTeacher as a repository for relevant material for JCOMM. This repository also serves as both reference material and teaching material in the capacity building activities carried out for JCOMM and IODE at the IODE Project Office (IODE-PO) in Ostend, Belgium. Only a small amount of material from DMPA, mostly related to the end-to-end data management project of ETDMP has been contributed. It is expected that as material is generated through the standards process, that more will be provided. 3.3.9.8 Through the initiation of the QMF process in WMO (agenda item 8.2) a number of IGOSS and IODE manuals will be revised. These will also contribute to OceanTeacher. This will be treated in another agenda item. 3.3.10 Collaborations with WMO 3.3.10.1 At MAN-V in response to an invitation from WMO, JCOMM identified four possible pilot projects for consideration in the context of a new WMO Integrated Global Observing System (WIGOS). In late 2007, we were asked to prepare an outline of a pilot project and to present this to the WIGOS meeting in early December. This was done by Etienne Charpentier and Bob Keeley. Etienne will provide a report on the most recent developments under agenda item 3.4. 3.3.10.2 At DMCG-2 it was recognized that DMPA needed representation on the WMO Expert Team on Data Representation and Codes (ET_DRC). This is the group that regulates what is included in BUFR tables among other activities. Hester Viola, the JCOMMOPS Technical Co-ordinator, was appointed and has attended meetings on our behalf. It is through her that the BUFR templates and other related work are presented to WMO for approval. 3.3.10.3 At DMCG-2 it was also recognized that DMPA would need to work with WMO on a metadata profile of ISO 19115. At the time, Greg Reed was working on a profile for marine data. He agreed to represent DMPA and IODE interests on the Inter - Programme Expert Team on Metadata Implementation (IPET-MI). Since then, the Marine Community Profile (MCP) has emerged as well as the WMO Core Metadata Profile. The latter is implemented in the WIS. There is work underway to reconcile any differences between the WMO-CMP and MCP. This was one outcome from the Standards Meeting mentioned earlier. We will hear more on this in items 3.1 and 8.3. 3.3.10.4 WMO has recently formed a group to look at the use of data formats other than the traditional ones used on the GTS. It is called the Expert Team on Assessment of Data Representation Systems (ET-ADRS). One of these is the use of netCDF. We have identified Thomas Loubrieu of IFREMER to represent JCOMM. 3.3.11 Collaborations with other Programme Areas 3.3.11.1 Within the Operations PA, there are significant data management activities. These support data acquisition, transmission ashore and assembly by a project or a panel. The links to these OPA activities is through only a very few members on the DMCG. To foster more collaborations across PAs, the Chairperson attended meetings of both the SPA and OPA in the last year. In each case, he was looking for opportunities to strengthen linkages beyond those that already exist. Some progress was made, but more needs to be done. It is suggested that in preparation for the call for nominations for members of DMCG, we prepare a short paragraph requesting candidates to provide details about their experience in managing the data from activities in SPA and OPA. We may also wish to provide other guidance. 3.3.11.2 We will hear from ETMC about a project to assemble information on extreme waves being conducted with the ET-WWSS of SPA. 3.3.12 Collaborations with Others 3.3.12.1 At a recent Ocean Observations Panel on Climate one member of the Panel expressed the need for a cookbook that explains the international data systems. The cookbook would provide information on how to go about providing data for exchange in real-time, what needs to be done and who to talk to for assistance and other practical matters. Similar information would be available for delayed mode data. He explained that one of the impediments to getting greater participation in real-time data exchange was this lack of knowledge. 3.3.12.2 In working with the Panel member, I have prepared a first draft of such a cookbook. It has been designed so that information on different types of data appears in different and stand alone sections. In this way, a potential data provider can quickly determine what section they need to read. Although this makes for a duplication of information, it makes for a simpler document for a reader. 3.3.12.3 This document has been sent to the Chairperson of OPA-CG to pass to members of the various Panels to add material relevant to their type of data. Likewise, IODE Officers can contribute for those sections dealing in delayed mode data. 3.3.13 Web site for DMPA This activity has only recently started. More details are provided in the appropriate agenda item. 3.3.14 CLIMAR-III I am involved as a member of the Steering Committee. Most of the work has been carried out by ETMC and we will hear more under agenda item 5.6. 3.3.15 Meta-T Discussions I have been involved in these discussions. We will hear more about this under the review of ETMC activities in agenda item 5.5. 3.3.16 Computer model outputs The Data Management Strategy identifies the need for DMPA to begin discussions with computer modelers to identify what outputs need to be preserved in the long term and what information needs to be retained to explain these outputs. So far no activity has taken place by DMPA. However, model outputs are constantly being produced and the international modeling community is making these choices daily. We need to have a discussion about what is the most appropriate role for DMPA in this domain. Is our role simply to be sure the marine model outputs are registered and available through WIS? ______________________ Appendix: 1 The Proposed IODE / JCOMM Standards Process 1. Introduction 1.1 The First Session of the IODE/JCOMM Forum on Oceanographic Data Management and Exchange Standards was held at the IOC Project Office (IODE-PO) for IODE, Ostend, Belgium between 21 and 25 January 2008. The meeting was organized because of the recognition that although there were mechanisms to help coordinate ocean data exchange, these had not resulted in the degree of agreement on a wide range of matters that are needed in order to allow the easy exchange and interoperability of data collected. This meeting was to initiate discussions on a limited set of topics for which it was felt that broad agreement was possible. A second objective was to discuss and if possible determine a way to establish an internationally recognized process for submitting proposed standards and their acceptance by the ocean community. The information contained in this document presents the results of those discussions. 1.2 The standards that are produced by this process are intended primarily for the use of the marine meteorological and oceanographic community. If they have wider applicability, they may be submitted to appropriate international standards bodies, such as ISO. However, after recommendation, their use will be widely encouraged within IOC and WMO. 2. Process description 2.1 The overall process is presented in figure 1. There are a number of steps in the process and a number of individuals and groups that have roles to play. These individuals and groups, and their roles and responsibilities are described here. 2.2 Much of the activity related to submission and approval of the standard will take place electronically. There will be face-to-face meetings of the team responsible for guiding submissions through the process, but approval is not tied to this meeting schedule. 2.3 The process from submission through evaluation may result in a recommended standard for IOC and WMO member/member states. Documentation of the proposal and comments generated through the review will be available through a web site. 2.4 The entire process is intended to be limited to a maximum of no more than 8 months. Although the timing described in this document should result in a decision more quickly than this, there may be some time expended in identifying individuals to take part in the review. 2.5 There are expected to be circumstances of proposals sufficiently well prepared and tested or of an application of an existing international standard. In these cases, there is a fast track process that can be taken. The determination of whether the proposal meets fast tracking criteria occurs early and allows for a more rapid determination of suitability. 2.6 Polling of individuals and member/member states is an important part of the process. It is through such polling that it will be clear if there is wide spread support for a proposal. Polling will be conducted electronically, with a set period for response. No response will be interpreted as unopposed. [ To be clarified: Who are the people in IODE and JCOMM that can vote? In IODE would it be the designated heads of NODCs? In JCOMM, would it be the official point of contact for JCOMM in a country? ]  SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT  2.7 Step 1: Submission of a proposal 2.7.1 A proposal to be presented to the IODE / JCOMM Standards Process can be prepared by any group within IODE and JCOMM, and by any member / member state of IOC and WMO. In addition, other groups that have interests in the management of marine meteorological and oceanographic data may submit proposals for consideration. 2.7.2 The scope of proposals should be related to collection, management and exchange of marine meteorological and oceanographic data between IOC and WMO member/member states. The emphasis is on improving the interoperability of data. As such, this would include: Developing vocabularies that permit unambiguous and machine processable data and information descriptions. Methods that encourage the convergence from multiple solutions to a problem, to fewer, more robust solutions. Methods that can be used widely in the marine meteorological and oceanographic community. Well tested methods for managing data or information that if widely used would provide greater consistency in treatment. 2.7.3 In order for a proposal to be considered, it must be prepared using the template provided in 2.7.4. Appendix 1 of this document or a more recent version available from the IODE-PO operating in Ostend, Belgium. 2.7.5 Proposals should be submitted to the IODE-PO. The contact is [to be decided]. They will be placed on the appropriate pages of the standards process web site maintained by the IODE-PO. 2.8 Step 2: Internal Review 2.8.1 The purpose of this step is to ensure that the proposal is complete and fully informative of what is being proposed. If information is lacking or the proposal is unclear, the proponent will be contacted and provided with comments about what changes are deemed necessary. 2.8.2 The internal review will be initiated by the IODE PO by sending a copy to members of the joint IODE/JCOMM Expert Team on Data Management Practices (ETDMP). Members will read the proposal and respond with comments within 15 days of notification. This review will examine the proposal and consider such questions as: Is the purpose of the standard well defined and clear? Is their sufficient detail in the proposal to allow for an expert review? Is the proposal clearly written and complete? Are there any obvious weaknesses? Is there another competing potential standard that has equal merit? Does this proposal address a pressing issue at this time? Can the standard be applied widely by the IOC and WMO member/member states? Is the proposal suitable for a fast track approach? Criteria to consider include: Has the submission come from a formal group responsible for managing data affected by the proposal? Does the proposal recommend circumstances for the application of an existing standard? Is it likely that the appropriate members for the technical internal review will come from the same group that submit the proposal? 2.8.3 Responses will be collated by the IODE-PO, and reviewed by the Chairperson of ETDMP. Based on comments received, the proponent will either receive notification that the proposal will be moved to submitted status, will receive the collated comments of the internal review so that the proposal can be amended, notified that the proposal will not be considered at this time, or the proposal will be fast tracked. 2.8.4 Proposals that meet criteria for fast tracking will be moved directly to Proposed status. 2.8.5 The proponents whose proposal requires changes will be given 15 days to respond with an amended proposal. If not met, the submission will be dropped from further consideration. 2.8.6 The comments will be placed on the appropriate pages of the standards process web site maintained by the IODE-PO and associated with the proposal. The outcome of the review will be clearly indicated. 2.9. Step 3: Status = Submitted 2.9.1 Moving a proposal to Submitted status means that it will undergo a review by an expert team. 2.9.2 The first action is taken by the ETDMP. They must identify members of the expert team to examine the proposal. Members may be drawn from ETDMP itself, or may be requested from other groups of IODE and JCOMM. In some circumstances, team members may be drawn from outside these organizations, to be sure adequate technical background is available. 2.9.3 The ETDMP must then work with the expert team to develop appropriate criteria for the review. These will be used to guide the discussions. 2.9.4 The IODE-PO will establish an on-line forum for discussions of the expert team. This forum will be password protected. 2.9.5 ETDMP will designate a moderator for the review. This person may be a member of ETDMP or of the expert team. Their role is to guide the review forward, ensuring that all discussions reach a conclusion and as possible consensus is reached. 2.9.6 The review should be conducted as expeditiously as possible. During the course of the review, the expert team may contact the proponent to clarify aspects. These exchanges should be minimized since if they become too frequent, it is an indication that the proposal has not been written clearly enough. 2.9.7 The moderator should provide a brief monthly report to the Chairperson of ETDMP. This report should summarize progress in the review and indicate what is left to do. The moderator may poll members at any time to determine if the proposal should pass to Proposed status. This will occur if the proposal achieves at least 75% support of respondants. 2.9.8 At the end of 3 months, if no decision has been reached by the expert team, a poll of expert team members will be taken. If there is sufficient support of members that favour the proposal it will be moved to Proposed status. 2.9.9 If support is insufficient, the Chairperson of the expert team will write a review of the discussions and provide this to ETDMP. These comments will go back to the originator who will be given a period of 1 month to address the technical shortcomings. The revisions will be passed back to the expert team, to judge and make a decision. If not enough support is garnered in a subsequent poll, the Chairperson of the expert team will summarize the shortcomings and report to the Chairperson of ETDMP. The Chairperson of ETDMP will notify the proponent, provide the report to them and invite them to revise and resubmit the proposal. 2.9.10 At the end of this step, the IODE-PO will close the internal forum and archive the discussions. The ETDMP will dissolve the expert team used in the internal review. 2.9.11 The comments will be placed on the appropriate pages of the standards process web site maintained by the IODE-PO and associated with the proposal. The outcome of the review will be clearly indicated. 2.10 Step 4: Status = Proposed 2.10.1 Moving a proposal to the Proposed stage means it is opened up for wide community review and discussion. 2.10.2 At this step the IODE-PO will undertake the following actions: It will open a public, on-line forum for discussion of the proposal. It will use methods such as Circular Letters, emails, notices on web pages and other communications means to notify the public that the standard has been proposed. It will provide the login information and invite comments for a period of 3 months. It will invite interested parties to experiment with the proposed standard to assist in evaluating its utility. 2.10.3 The ETDMP will appoint a moderator to guide the public discussion. In most cases, this would be the same person who played this role for the internal review, since they will know the previous discussions and so will be able to short cut discussions that do not progress the evaluation. The moderators role is to foster discussion and evaluation. They should refrain from detailed explanations of the proposal since if this is required, it means the proposal is not clearly written or defined. 2.10.4 A poll to judge support for passing the proposal to Recommended status may be taken at any time, but will occur no later than 3 months after the proposal achieved Proposed status. All IODE and JCOMM member/member states will be polled with one vote per member. If the proposal attains 75% support of respondants, it will be passed to the Recommended step. 2.10.5 If the proposal does not achieve sufficient support, the moderator will summarize the discussions of the forum, and provide a list of shortcomings identified. This will be provided to ETDMP. 2.10.6 ETDMP may decide: that the proposal should be returned to the proponent, along with the comments and an invitation to resubmit a modified proposal. to cease further consideration of the proposal in which case the proponent will be provided with the comments and decision. to suspend the proposal. Reasons for doing so may include that there has been insufficient testing performed, or that the proposal though sound, needs better clarity. The moderator will work with the proponent to improve the description, or identify means to conduct further tests. In no more than 3 months, the revised proposal, with perhaps new results from testing will again be put to a vote. If sufficient support is achieved, the proposal passes to the Recommended stage, or is removed from the process. 2.10.7 At the end of this step, the IODE-PO will close the public forum and archive the discussions. 2.10.8 The comments will be placed on the appropriate pages of the standards process web site maintained by the IODE-PO and associated with the proposal. The outcome of the review will be clearly indicated. 2.11 Step 5: Status = Recommended 2.11.1 Having achieved Recommended status, the standard will be widely advertised. 2.11.2 The IODE-PO will undertake the following actions: It will use methods such as Circular Letters, emails, notices on web pages and other communications means to notify member/member states of IOC and JCOMM that the standard has been recommended. It will provide the URL where information about the standard can be found It will invite all member/member states of IOC and JCOMM to implement the recommended standard as soon as feasible. It will establish a registry where member/member states can indicate when and in what circumstances they have achieved compliance with the recommended standard. 2.11.3 The Chairperson of IODE and the Chairperson of the DMPA will prepare appropriate resolutions on the use of the recommended standard to be submitted to parent bodies for ratification. Appendix 1: Submission Template (To be provided) ______________     DMCG-III/Doc. 3, p.  PAGE 5 DMCG-III/Doc. 3, Appendix, p.  PAGE 6 Appendix Step 1: Proposal submission Step 2: Proposals submitted according to the template are submitted to the IODE-PO Internal review ETDMP conduct review of fitness of the proposal and responds within 15 days Step 3: Status = Submitted Expert team conducts a technical review of fitness of the proposal and responds within 3 months Step 4: Status = Proposed The review is open to the community to determine fitness of the proposal with results within 3 months Step 5: Status = Recommended The proposal is recommended for wide use in IODE and JCOMM Figure 1: IODE / JCOMM Standards Process overview GH|} FGabg$psŶ⮩Ⓥzk\QQCJOJQJ^JaJCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH jCJOJQJUmHnHu5CJOJQJ 5OJQJ6CJOJQJaJ 6OJQJOJQJ5;OJQJB*CJOJQJmH phsH B*CJOJQJph CJOJQJ6CJOJQJCJ CJOJQJ5CJOJQJ^J5CJOJQJ5CJ 7FGHj|}wxjj $1$If]1a$Z$$IfxFVa#S%    4 xa $ $Ifa$ $$Ifa$ $If] $$If]a$ lNmo    n$If^n n$If^n n$If^n $$Ifa$ $  $Ifa$$If  FGbcdefg $$Ifa$ d]$If$a$$a$Z$$IfxFVa#S%    4 xapqrs$a$ S]$N^N`a$$a$1$$IfTxB4 xa $$Ifa$$If , -  ` a $ S^a$$ Sa$$a$$ S1$7$8$H$a$ $O^O`a$$ O^O`a$   rK^"" '(()) *--222 333@4W46666666777;<ڳڳڳڤڤڟڳ5;OJQJ^JCJOJQJ^JaJ 5OJQJOJQJCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH B*CJOJQJ^JaJphCJH*OJQJ^JaJ>*CJOJQJ^JaJCJOJQJ^JaJ5;CJOJQJ^JaJ5CJOJQJ^JaJ4a ^1w $ S^a$ $ S^a$ $ ^a$$ & F nn^n`a$$ & F n^n^n`a$CD#$hi#s$ & F nn1$^n`a$$a$$ Sa$ $ S7$8$H$a$s%&!!""""q$r$ &!&(()) * */-$ Sa$$a$$ & F nn1$^n`a$/-0-----//11w2x22222 3 333338494W4X46$ Sa$666666666777::;;<< = =>>?$ Sa$$a$$a$$ 67nJ ^`a$ 67nJ ^`??@@}A~ABBBBBBBBCCCCCEEFF|FFDG$ & F 8nn1$^n`a$$a$$ Sa$<O?P?BB~CCCCCCCCCHHHHHVIrIkKrKCQJQRRXX*Y2YZZ]^ ``c cccfgi*illllllllllllԹԹԘԘԘԘԘԘԘԘԘԘԘԘԘԘԘԘԘԓ jUOJQJ5CJOJQJ^JaJ(jCJOJQJU^JaJmHnHujCJOJQJU^JaJ *CJOJQJ^JaJCJOJQJ^JaJ 5B*CJOJQJ^JaJphB*CJOJQJ^JaJph8DGGGHHUIVIrIsIJJKKLLLzLLLMfMM$ & F W1$^`Wa$$ & F S1$^S`a$$ Sa$$a$$ & F 8nn1$^n`a$MMNtNNNPPPQQQRRRRRRRSSsTtTU S$ Sa$$a$$ & F r1$^`ra$ $h1$^ha$UUUU{V|VWWYYZZ~\\+],]]]^^^^^^$ W^`Wa$$a$$ Sa$^__```{b|bccddddSeegg5h6hi$ & F W1$^`Wa$$ W^`Wa$$ Sa$$ & F W1$^`Wa$ii*i+iiiiiiiiijj?kkkllllll S$ & F W1$^`Wa$$ W^`Wa$ $ Sa$ Slllllllllllllmmmm?m@mImJmKmLmMmNmVm$a$$a$lmm mmmmmm$m,m1m2m8m9m:m;mnnnnnnn#o$o,o-oDoEoooooooo3 0&P1h/ =!"#n$n% 5 000&P P. A!"#n$n%nnDd SD  3 @@"?- i@@@ Normal1$CJ_HaJhmH sH tH X@X Heading 1$$ `@&a$5CJOJQJ\aJmH sH P@P Heading 2$$ `@&a$6CJOJQJ]aJ^@^ Heading 3$$ `@&a$$56CJOJQJ\]aJmH sH b@b Heading 4$$  @&a$5CJOJQJ\aJmH sH t@t Heading 5:$$ $ C @&]C^ `a$5CJOJQJ\aJn@n Heading 64$ $ C @&]C^ `5CJOJQJ\aJN@N Heading 7$@& i5CJOJQJ\aJP@P Heading 8$n@&`n56CJOJQJ\]aJ<A@< Default Paragraph Font4&@4 Footnote ReferenceLB@L Body Text _ CJOJQJaJmH sH (U@( Hyperlink>*B*F@"F Header1$ 9r CJOJQJaJmH sH &)@1& Page Number, @B, Footer  9r zC@Rz Body Text Indent/$ 67nJ 7^7`a$CJOJQJaJmH sH T@b Block TextC # n> ~N rd1$]r^d`CJOJQJaJmH sH ZP@rZ Body Text 2$ _!a$CJOJQJaJmH sH fR@f Body Text Indent 2$ `^a$CJOJQJaJmH sH fS@f Body Text Indent 3$ `n`na$CJOJQJaJmH sH :Q@: Body Text 3CJOJQJaJ8Y@8  Document Map-D OJQJ"W@" Strong5\Z^@Z Normal (Web)dd1$[$\$OJPJQJ^JhmH sH &X@& Emphasis6]e@ HTML Preformatted: 2( Px 4 #\'*.25@91$#CJOJPJQJ^JaJhmH sH O a>V@> FollowedHyperlink >*B* phLO"L 1st para"1$7$8$H$CJOJQJaJhmH sH XO2X Indent#p1$7$8$H$^`pCJOJQJaJhmH sH lOBl Sub indent*$$ pd1$7$8$H$^ `pa$CJOJQJaJhmH sH "OR" 1.1.1%6&Ob& 1.1.1.1&:,Or, 1.1.1.1.1'6:^O^ Reference(p1$7$8$H$^`pCJOJQJaJhmH sH bOb 1.1,)|d<1$7$8$H$^`|5CJOJQJaJhmH sH @O@  Balloon Text*CJOJQJ^JaJPZ@P  Plain Text,1$#CJOJ QJ ^J aJhmH sH tH  'sQZo3fk      'sQZo3fi     2k5 7FGHj|}    FGbcdefgpqrs,-  ` a  ^ 1 w CD#$hi#s%&q r "!"$$%% & &/)0)))))++--w.x..... / /////8090W0X0222222222333667788 9 9::;;<<}=~=>>>>>>>>?????AABB|BBDCCCDDUEVErEsEFFGGHLHzHHHIfIIIJtJJJLLLMMMNNNNNNNOOsPtPQQQQ{R|RSSUUVV~XX+Y,YYYZZZZZZ[[\\\{^|^__````Saacc5d6dee*e+eeeeeeeeeff?ggghhhhhhhhhhiiii?i@iIiJiKiLiNiViWikilitiuiiiiijj'j(j=j>jjjjjjj#k$k,k-kDkEkkkkk0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000`00000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0fI 0fI 0fI000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0000000000 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0 000000000000@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 00000000000000000 ------XXZegj<lo:AHOa s/-6?DGMU^ilVmoo;=>?@BCDEFGIJKLMNPQo<???k ')KRTj!!@  @ 4 (    (D% 3  s"*?`  c $X99?(D%t  # C"?$ \ $  N    4  t  # C"?$ \  t   # C"?(A  N     4+ t   # C"? ( t   # C"?$ J\ e N    J4 t  # C"?H(  t  # C"?$ \   N    4m  t  # C"?(  t  # C"?$ >\ Y   N   4 ! t  # C"?( ! ZB  S D  ZB  S D,HZB  S DZB  S Dlt  # C"?$ (# !D% n  s *? #" B S  ?H0(  ?k%r!t _Hlt420917360}kk   z!!33DDhhhhhhhhhhhhMiNik  aLO./ '('((9);)))++,,-->>AADCOCCC(DDyE|E"IdIJJM MMMOO-P;PRRSSUUV VWWXX3Y6YZZ__``SaUaaacc=d@d2e8ehhhhhhhhhhhhMiNik3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 67EHij{,  ^ w x..... /////90Y022??IIYZ``e+ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhi1i;iuQB,R~EX$h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h88^8`OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHoh  ^ `OJ QJ o(hHh  ^ `OJQJo(hHhxx^x`OJ QJ ^J o(hHohHH^H`OJ QJ o(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHoh^`OJ QJ o(hHh ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h^`CJOJQJaJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHohpp^p`OJ QJ o(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHoh^`OJ QJ o(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHohPP^P`OJ QJ o(hHh ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHohpp^p`OJ QJ o(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHoh^`OJ QJ o(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHohPP^P`OJ QJ o(hHREX}%#^QHDv)CuQ                                              ,>                           @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @GH|}Ge$sYhhhhhik_09991J@Acrobat PDFWriterLPT1:Acrobat PDFWriterAcrobat PDFWriterAcrobat PDFWriter$ od``Acrobat PDFWriter$ od``oooOkP@Unknown Gz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial=Arial BoldC"UniversArial;& z Helvetica5& z!TahomaI& ??Arial Unicode MS3Times?5 z Courier New;Wingdings" hT&NU&2,~V,Y-! d7jZi 2q HXVU:\My Documents\International\JCOMM\DMPA\Meetings\DMCG-3 2008\DMCG-3-Doc-x.y-Title.dotDMCG-III Robert KeeleyadminwmoOh+'0   < H T `lt| DMCG-III MCGRobert KeeleyoobeDMCG-3-Doc-x.y-Title.dot0 adminwmoc-x3miMicrosoft Word 9.0e@G@a[@4݂@tF,~V՜.+,0 hp  WMO-IOC,7j  DMCG-III Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRTUVWXYZ\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FbData S1Table[aWordDocumentlSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjjObjectPoolbb  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q