05-DEC-2024

Author: A.Sabaydash CEO GeoPhone SW

S-101 is a new international hydrographic standard developed by the IHO (International Hydrographic Organization), based on the S-100 Universal Data Model. Its use will soon become mandatory, replacing the current S-57 standard. This transition raises crucial questions for Hydrographic Offices (HOs) and, more importantly, for technology providers in the field of navigation data production—like our company.
To determine the best technical approach, we need a comprehensive understanding of what S-101 is, its objectives, the problems it addresses, its advantages and disadvantages, and its unique features. It’s impossible to create or optimize something without fully understanding it, let alone claiming that we can do it in the best way for our clients.
Based on publicly available information, the main objectives of the new standards under S-100 include:

• Transitioning to ISO standards.
• Enhancing data interoperability.
• Improving the encoding and presentation of Electronic Navigational Charts (ENC).

While the first goal (adherence to ISO standards) is straightforward, understanding how S-101 addresses data interoperability or what specific issues it solves remains unclear. The same applies to improvements in encoding and presentation, which could arguably be achieved without transitioning to S-101.

To understand what sets S-101 apart from S-57, we identified the following areas of change:

• New objects added.
• Some S-57 objects removed.
• Changes in object attributes.
• Modifications to object geometry.
• Updates to object associations.
• Transformation of existing objects.
• Removal of certain S-57 attributes.
• Addition of new attributes.
• Changes to attribute types.
• Changes to attribute values.
• Removal of some S-57 attribute values.
• Addition of new attribute values.
• Transformation of attribute values.

However, how these changes improve interoperability remains questionable. Most of the differences appear to be syntactical rather than introducing genuinely new entities. Many of these changes could have been implemented under the existing S-57 framework. This suggests that the changes are largely syntactical without clear practical justification.

Historically, new languages and syntax are introduced when new physical or logical phenomena require new ways of expression. For example, mathematics evolved to include algebra, negative numbers, fractions, and complex numbers as new problems arose. In contrast, hydrography is not experiencing a comparable shift; the same entities are simply being described with a new language. This would be amusing if it weren't for the significant financial costs and risks involved.

The ambitions of influential developers and political stakeholders are driving substantial and potentially unnecessary expenditures. National Maritime Administrations will bear the cost of transitioning to the new standard while still supporting the old one. This not only diverts funds from practical safety measures but also introduces new risks and errors for which local authorities will be held accountable.

Artificially prohibiting the use of S-57 with datasets like S-111 (surface currents), S-102 (high-resolution bathymetry), and S-104 (tides) contradicts the principle of providing essential navigational safety data to ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems) users. Whether such restrictions are legally justified remains a topic for further investigation, as there are no technical barriers to using both data formats simultaneously.

In practice, some companies are already promoting solutions that integrate S-57 and S-100 data. So, why are navigators—responsible for the safety of cargo and passengers—denied access to accurate depth, current, and tide data through officially certified ECDIS?

We are not against S-100 or S-101. We have effective technical solutions to help our clients transition smoothly and efficiently, mitigating risks while staying within existing budgets. S-101 does bring enhancements that could improve ENC quality. However, its adoption should not restrict the use of all available data that has no technical limitations on interoperability. The new information should be accessible to all navigational systems and all vessel types without delay.

The main difference between S-101 and S-57 lies in new encoding rules for the same entities. Evaluating such a shift purely from a technical standpoint is challenging since there are no clear criteria for comparison.

• Does it solve interoperability issues? No, because these issues do not actually exist.
• Does the new S-101 lexicon revolutionize the future of navigation? No, it does not. In fact, it adds artificial limitations that hinder the declared goal of interoperability.

Supporters of S-101 often substitute arguments for its adoption with claims of enhanced data integration, which S-101 itself complicates in practice.
Given that the benefits of this technical shift are unclear, let’s consider the associated costs. The cost of technical tools, including software, accounts for 10-15% of a typical Hydrographic Office's budget. Transitioning from S-57 to S-100 will certainly require new software, but the greater expense will come from training and potentially hiring new personnel over an extended period. Our estimates suggest this cost could increase by 200% to 300% over five years or more.

What is the purpose of all this? To simply change the string associated with a navigational object? Is it worth increasing Maritime Administrations' chart production costs by doubling their budgets just to access a new set of characters?

As a technology company, we find this logic unacceptable. Therefore, we emphasize reducing the costs and risks associated with this transformation. Automation of chart production is the primary tool in our solutions, ideally keeping budgets the same or even reducing them. The transition from S-57 to S-101 encoding rules can largely be automated, allowing us to focus on reducing manual labor and improving the quality of navigational publications, regardless of format.

One of the biggest risks of moving from S-57 to S-101 is the potential collapse of the existing production system before the new one is fully operational. Thus, we advocate for a gradual, evolutionary transition that ensures the reliability of navigational chart publications.

Another risk involves increasing technological dependency on software vendors. We offer open-architecture solutions that allow Hydrographic Offices to combine products from different suppliers and utilize their own resources, ensuring greater control over the technological process.

The transition from S-57 to S-101 is a complex, expensive, and risky endeavor for anyone involved in publishing official navigational products. Beyond Hydrographic Offices, these risks and implications must be well understood by all stakeholders whose safety and business depend on accurate and timely navigational information. A broad discussion involving technology developers is essential for the success of the S-100 transformation.