24-APR-2025

Author: A.Sabaydash CEO GeoPhone SW

To assess the quality of any technical solution, one must clearly understand the problem it is intended to solve. Without understanding the task, it is impossible to find the right solution — and S-100 is no exception. However, when it comes to understanding the purpose behind implementing new hydrographic standards, we encounter a number of fundamental difficulties.

Surprisingly, the problem that the new standards are supposed to solve is never actually defined. In other words, S-100 in hydrography appears to be a solution without a problem — which makes it impossible to evaluate its usefulness and efficiency. On the other hand, we are told that the new standards represent a true revolution that will allow us to address navigational tasks on a fundamentally new level.

But what is this revolution, exactly?

But what exactly is the problem with interoperability, and how do the new standards solve it?

Let’s try to answer them ourselves.

It is said to lie in the ability to use diverse datasets to ensure maritime safety through the so-called data interoperability model.

Here we find that neither IHO, nor UKHO, nor other proponents of S-100 are able to provide a clear answer to these simple questions.

Articles

In our view, the issue of data interoperability doesn’t really exist — and this may explain why proponents of the new standards have shifted from talking about “solutions” to simply offering “improvements.” Yet even this shift leaves us in the dark: what exactly was wrong before, and how has S-100 improved or fixed it?

Data has been shared and used collaboratively for quite some time, both with and without the S-100 model. Numerous examples of successful use of S-57, S-102, S-111, and S-104 already exist in the market — and no significant issues arise. However, it remains difficult to grasp how and to what extent S-100 improves interoperability.

In practice, the opposite seems to be true: the use of S-100 actually complicates data sharing. Consider, for instance, datasets in S-101 and S-102 formats. Simply trying to load them into computer memory reveals that the reading procedures for these standards differ by about 90% — requiring unique code development, debugging, maintenance, error correction, etc. So where exactly is the benefit, and why is S-100’s introduction met with such high expectations?

The arguments in favor of the new standards are often replaced with arguments for interoperability — whose benefits are obvious and don’t need to be debated. This rhetorical sleight of hand, where cause and effect are swapped, leaves end users completely confused. Marketing campaigns that promote the notion that the S-100 format is the data only worsen the situation, hindering rational evaluation.

Data and formats are fundamentally different entities, though they are dialectically related. Using a language (i.e., a standard) does not guarantee that everything said or written in it is true — just as a true statement cannot be made without following grammatical rules. One does not negate the other, but neither can exist in isolation. Syntax and semantics exist only together — as a unified whole.

There is no doubt that more accurate and complete data on seabed topography, currents, and tides can enhance navigational safety, assist mariners, and reduce risks to passengers and cargo. The real question is: how exactly, and with what efficiency, do the new standards enable better data interoperability?

A basic analysis shows that the new standards do not help, and in some cases actively hinder, data sharing — making them a poor technical solution: overly complex, expensive, inconsistent, and risky. Let’s look at this argument more closely through the lens of replacing S-57 charts with those in S-101 format.

Everyone agrees that S-57 electronic charts will need to be produced and maintained for the next 10–15 years. Despite the introduction of a "universal model" and a declared focus on data interoperability, it is forbidden to use new data with S-57 — it can only be used with S-101, for which no clear release schedule exists.

As a result, the implementation policy for S-101 means that mariners will be unable to use new bathymetric, weather, hydrological, and other datasets that could improve navigational safety — for an extended period of time. This directly contradicts the stated goals of the new standards. Moreover, there are no technical limitations preventing the joint use of S-57 and S-100.

In fact, a straightforward solution exists: encapsulating S-57 into the S-100 model, allowing S-57 data to be described and published just like any other format in the S-100 family. The main benefit of this approach is that not a single bit of information in existing official S-57 charts needs to be changed — and they could be used tomorrow, alongside weather, current, and precise bathymetric data, within the S-100 framework.

More details about this solution — including free software to present S-57 according to S-100 rules — can be found at https://dkart.fi/articles/what-is-wrong-with-the-s100. Needless to say, this proposal was completely ignored by all official stakeholders. This suggests that the real goal of implementing the new hydrographic standards is the implementation itself — not simplifying data sharing.

In practice, the transition to S-100 means maintaining S-57 production and publishing new data in new formats simultaneously — a heavy burden for hydrographic offices (HOs) already operating under financial and resource constraints. It seems inevitable, politically if not technically.
Understanding this, we propose the next generation of our technology — dKart Evolution — as a pragmatic and cost-effective solution, consisting of three core components:

• TOKINIZER
• EDITOR/INSPECTOR
• DELTA

These components are built using modern data processing technologies, artificial intelligence, and automation. https://dkart.fi/dkart-evolution/tokinizer