ࡱ> <~}nY5xϰ֬O%BdPNG  IHDR`sRGB pHYsurC`k[IDATx^mu>]{oˡ (TAD#C!M(Fݣh)'fB1݊h:FjRDR"AGB̟>yf@(q֫w>3?W;ш_'N .PN)}k ȯP `HhM~Rt[.N'wو]`0@޻x':lCAe׬T*$ …ai{N+'vu>7V4pg$uAl0t`^3(G@/QەC~7 bV!%cp$It]5ȸB%wj^σGpG%bsœm8!P*D8~2`:%?] Eh=:8*j" &V?C߾fӵ>чן|^=Np'Cx0'"v }hЀHa86N1\`Rތlj"h"^+ +W.ݻ}Qb!Tx0o2#ŕwܫ R nzx 쎦 s{F, T֌D>:#рybJToѐXT/>ݚ.\rq'?W|zsn0Q8DҨd8GPwǢ7vNX>h''ѥ^Ifg Gox{i]p6~[onT P_w4JV; e$8ݾP c9cavAJs 'cQ$;04X"gݎ6Ws6R"#0Yl+07E&/?kvp oBAP 74e^- <5@|d$~!(8ml9#FcϡE&T+ۧK}<ݠM=(ʾu] v"qL:ELN~j7)p8xm@^96DTl7x>2wyb&Jq'bx!?Q'4ȁurƯQpk&MN=F7N.~%"1OY`l/1E @%v\1 M2WsGvr4#VۅX lfAo_@N_aWz]^nX Q dF"q@' y+(D8`Heb`a_:k6x8w=^B=&z Ƿ}?ǹݿ-Rtx{.s'1 6|턎@^Lx8ᡐ OOC`P"#J̎aL̟1mI6.8فQoF ۝^յm~kM4v4=Mp 3+wVkU48bCzn&;9vj܅sG-R#pŪFx8 8EC,A0!Q ~.Ėt Y: J?LM˖Q ùG 5H>feoo>\__]Y[٩n/F{էO۝{L&;;Lj^yZ%N4T*ը/!AUzd,}L'Y#ɍ C%^ml?p.)Wf!@9{hW*~ɜ=}2ϭoܻz.twԈ_ښ](P}FTб~ "/BdÖ焀iw.9k|v[XC;t=؏En yC]Z  '5;d+k[l ~\N$/^г:ȫɏ}ܱ#GK{I@?#AoBl`V;'-W$BG^a0so@8EST(aC|*UJxO"5܁v`n֤MX(ؘ=כ`? y}6枓O xyۭml\ cXA>(<łu(Rdފ_^X|΃>Sɸ?c8+Czm/cK~`$h5B˧!0 q(So_d^zoߝ/#x-IaF+PKsv^c?ـDaIX sUbl%{7UOB8f/lM3I~kôIW t8!'hJ]5M+| BvGxhGM:k˟~Y`ö}ir`k:쪳OCAn0aSMM׍+ȑ.O|Pǰr^ݵ+ΛGwAk^;E*τ"IHA(Aİ\E_"t0jwkمLZIĢLln>S6ē04K{ng^\~:C;Y& :`4[t2aC\6.auu{Q'ΈQ ;x͒< @rQ0"p$^y_+h< Rtȑ.8 O/.N{ZI-Ƣ.¼is]M5&]rθH9"at%;0gggәN<˧gN%2]WÝ~ȵ{ʓaZد#$A1>A wTt1֠;UkVTWkXyNX"̴krق6"QEt8< dAlq{q;-F@VPK7oݥ#[7"z_+Zսr% DE6`G h!''*ozµL@N -`~+3'݃JA`M@bKDXgDƧ]<beHqFxk\c \w6{sTrg!dWZ!H7kwI"ۡɿ\({g=6 }/F}ܙMheoԛGUeXup҂])dhECzwpS > 2IJlCmk>'<1M?&Z wFx<+|6_ذ  "9 Ǭ׈׮˯!\/9o +?@LiwOq询,_724B&aygH%1;E~[؎mں7܁y%j B*v|m70-] ńACRYsp`bg"hi&/BH4Q {N }xK1Kh8vW(<@/ (' OؽS vY4+pԚK3#+fysc0NvT>zhZU*٭J"6\6C vߨWsM;T<l5wi4@!zIqOtΣfpݨ] ' -0Ēc8",\v!#P9-dTkĜpNlq8=J'V\={k𹵭&&qv`mɢ ]\8i!i9٬gt&NZV1>}tٿZMG%^~~?PX>GA][k`U^ .ߒ˽pbZW f-N%"B*Z3W(^rA~i xjY`af^ ND%p"ӐR[y W8YOC¦Fb^T%ωi5':r[=*+G4Ż¯jb $:/Ѓ]n+w@\&/̃&yEV48cVEs7#92TJHzw Ree9ps*0~ ,@1D'=L4L$.]^j?9k).=U~cX\#q^[1q5jo}sM} kC!lAcQVÑޒ 6A*A`|< o11uy CCbon<?[?U~5.nfpm!7ba^)j a)< ⻬q=3(]׸AXWRoτA!?hC6I8l/Z!Qi&:^YN[L z81F{ 'dhه CՍr(ШkC .(YO DT*ANB &TNw؈DG9wyv3 ߿~?O\ ln~Y>%bAp'.Z O`?lA*.Kt c.|_P*{q9:qis M2X#Ä:ʧ7h{eCq숥VQ:ntktB^63x۵Τa < 05K;d3R[3`1onhƟ}]ݔD2݇o sg-noóǹd2<7}}評xk׶QT^dA n!fd ݣLABBPg*F\[; KSOa.JHj, $&8y!ikGLD_aC#EhM7 $8eLmmY*^p͛`5=pN}z}i@׻F=qmjo!G!x\OԞL4>#)(&. NCX6Ąz3:sHc6>I9-`uυpE*x`Cr_.yCE}B7i D?"UT8_|{ E:J=&}:)r &[t5twG `Ai|qRGwJh wi`m:lE; J<͈psS 6_7#=#ZvCC"χbBŘ1\WAPK ݎֆx-g_"2f֩6)+0ߐCag@' -h>Uĵ|U1`z+D,["cJx"!WΙ7sB=?)WD16+AwG6J{j]1ԁ׃b۾pW(ýW*#ii+D4:z.xǨը 6ZQ)7D$ݛ2"s;xQC|{V3G(gt&/ܻ_.=)\vʓ8V7굶BE\rjݣ'tmo).`o4QRm;l؟a\,wݱ'BP/5ʍh, iiivqi! ^J_XɃ3rjygO9_&K޸=dL9q6vՅ?t$lfGfS߇@b*+J8 51e(i5ZS&&ux+H *RaqWƍ_}tk}u1aH fv z/=V{5xEgj8ֽC+'-0:g'O u6(LayIEufd;xYy9{+[9WPz_gt }_u s1[*J+YCOaI-#Ę& zh/lKpJwu0KZpG7OO>wnW( K+ZM ?҆#/&+s~es>+ ]๫L oOjܩn{^=@voFMzn?zmvl{\Ko/GDR"b[-"L.Ā TQYd }/?剷 /RArZMRc;@ykC-ks}Xܪ=x(PT+_S"p׌& k +EpEpsn޿JM,;~dnnۂ$70Ro#2LWW=+{A:R^mv0cX&;]Oo3.1R^KE(<ZX4$8Ȉ F=9 7(V zSܬ?~#f)hӬ2 WZNl#F8lyH|49\\o#IbdDq_eh٪:h$[%RzNG3b|{̞^yÁR: K^wJ Q{H֟Z?KBl6 6Z|Po5PQs܂ۙKm!:fa :B$B q9p82r'()ȟx+Ⅱv:صapNgJ[?qdlܺ d?}\ړ!DL+|A=\+&$LзIQK-'b`F*Hr!AL )ːRQ=@\3Aq:a[JtI-)- iEGpx>2ETq?1|0bώ|K7`SfT/5.֛hׯ({+ɈEMN*7\IɼðWNԙɼmղa(Ǧ&%[8!hY=y\,/߃EhX;@q)<)cZrPx2l.v<,H{,'{.Ϫ#Ln25C<1Ѓ6DqLa10{xFqmD8A)pID7W0%?Sڑ'H%e%qmXs$*'f֛/'ҫimxnS#1FQwvoLZynf"g֝]2 m_)2.1o3֮.Bm^O\WCY  "i6cфif%csғ_˄7H<릵idFM|f>NQ<!%t++%օL'U(e$ FS~*)pVZ}UGH yb:;3T滯tϜ> 0xU2pǸt~V޸v{jΜ;rJ& X少'%t.X\sb1'v F/e_4DtV0aAPd/{j&Y7fun #ۅb^B0AG>=}HVX}Ө6:o;G3B}@dGq dA$RB_qGCQK&砧[ DFV*;{j~\>uwFOtnԂ&zI4($V&`q8DN͂Gr`\@So`fǐ\Pj, 9W?FmU{| TfGg@Hq~zTZ@raaw@6DD sxBYX,cfB"5 a4'jN=( ڜM#-ZÃ)2 겇֬t_\x:$į4֦>eIߕ9l9tUFiL=ۄl\]L8 Ki0ov#Bfey/`=a<!h3

;D%jdHo0BnhA JR=$|$]M 0*ӜƮJ%_2Ⲗ~6,삓/Z@W' XGT1b(4(H P%!+P u.+n\ n8\72WZF'nHHYl ‹(>b0L4+!!L\}mOˡCcI'c7aMUwZ`~CXjcxD2c0pBT4 &+ M`wxYQ'btYj{ 39zl4<, }V(^`jt (>h&~&aG vٗX6G`0P^[:̼IXFt7 ~ 9lPc:>T>.vQ8%/%dKPKݝObe17:qFʟH^ADM C`<7>bo_QĢ$V$~Yj`2+%S|$ل FcIne<A $d+X?/(ʩ>dۨ8|q'DS摯LvR!CkQ3bivSJ0 yRC?s?x_}1W >B7m {])dӣ>ּ9Rvc/l+@ ]4?TgXWm+DAPڪnG4n7Sl#cLjKQCz{A.*![h jCC,!Ѝp/䦦 VTu6`B\.JcO [Tu\kqpԱ 8ԚvJ&gsa n"YnK6qPTpqO=Pfr'ּ%fw^ڨ޽ν՝JO+ǧݽ~}(zqUeR333h\Bךt l.^V {:H,:FD˦Du@% 6 KN 2r^pb0"#F2.6ւ|.Zl~^6NIEAS%2YZχ܏q9hɚz^qpp}WظQ' :u>Xb@t*ioiױKF%*wю~$j9\y(bڢƝ]`ia(WFNSanj~,:$Bx/OQRS]3bbjhBa bk[h&!GWt[/m=ɮx0[U9ؾ(A!O\2o!z@=Bָr9Ƀf-rD'.V1y8vQ}w2d"|"࢜'fuLzS>h6շ㥪U :Ƥzym.:5kx>F͘t ,8N֑tR=~xK<%-t6Lz#+bԂ 3f@%٧$ġJ͞T$I=}>A $ꇦ<݇+ǦN#CEG4?slQBNoԲYFWhGGAp D<%FbHIp5v08o1aWlC|C~},K9媿ܩ!xks_(xX>?҂;s6 q SΧDv ]Ⱥ;ab$/ .>ZE̐ 2My{%>ܢ'T:]:J@iiFFC kZ: ޣ(ѕ#~/hvzfeyBR.$粩Fٙhrḽf[?E`Pq@'tQ%C"J`D.\Tip)aÝD~z Wrv0D*fWc*NM=eXWb1-I#&P C/)4qy뒑$^!+GI8٘]VI!İ~߁&vҵ޽`#\:?dꝥԙS1iN0n55뎘0Mxm&ǿZɩҔzFÙ!I†}f'Ν~513'3nL2m QC9E,\זR[ףܜK%.h%tTWZݭ Oݩoog\w>.KDZOz]_5!ô+FUQ*vZPyQEi< EgD$W}żQ* I@ hi㟬F%Oi&Va읇N0v8=fzJ;&W('(̸.@Cax޲[+ \YOS@"-{kܹKtc9ĻByS׻ 2L{8y?Zv;ef=~kb)rr(4G1[7Uv#Atdze'|(h}ה/J;FU 8AjHNq{lK e^]a~JJ =L$!E&waˏFB&E]잠;MsFzUNt{-@qэJ-b3/o#U4\S3Zއ5po`U,i㑅Ywx3sU0|>BKjRGYN6]D1 .(T"p J |x{N%8 "JdG<,Q pf_*7@p®7VVoep6zᕕMQ|s|[$9f<x\6CRU~ b~]QS6H1ȟ:j6w+vAUݝ*,.TKFi!Xt 5Dd8LvmQK*=MX8 ;&־= E΁gۃP>JspY]kF3a )Ov KKKspt@x>*U,vm^nx?)X]O (a L!~vjv&?;@pt멧OHO3s-m2j!:@,|`ԧ3.sz1>~ rύrpXF~Cr7fWFhLcfl6L!6Hך6c="V艱M<. Ւ6&NB ԜB[gF`=(}Ouo;t"64.2(}6dyF!67'+{,%O`,G{~*+ƷpQhZ#8Uؾ`a_2ΑRxur6;[,?T;!V6Qfoq)>jwe5c^͆F8BmmU7@]E$;*p?U=@!s’ R(˟\ GԑOEf'rxy"jGYzVGv}TR"+XD9hI$uWeB0 EPPQkfv1nlSp00ڔmRefccS3@V \1 a4up6S2A W$9t'uOp]2j˘XI% ;IV*4p,/;\ww|F_~zwnf n"5IGҏ^ i5< vD i&ʌlD *gFcPm;بT@]\YͿs{;riX f1@PPGa T–ӈ;>#-a[2` ̩JdfnM ?zdaiqFD,6;= n]"ݺ9e+e\<ƅ1'a y&lw+Qg 6?'nՃD8ypRMM]׳<$@unㇶn*>oI=(8$ D&W|Ȧ*՝!~V}Yd|g{c.ZC)v7*c%!4V˃j3<~Y.*3O3г)eDAj&mF[ \by!d MdVKvyǵXS<?m#EciJnڦ'`xlB>t$6aq0ÞbiR0J`xЖ:יT&7')'U+j81@UէL@xJIR >Q~OV]^rZY™)@Z|rhQzd8iv]Az\Jq%Xj.x]5Cayc{۽??҂M*,p+\b3b!?=M'ĝpB} !po粙8׭)kiJD""(-ʹt6HJ"(j9˥3Nv'N__}jvΞ9GܕNrZwq #{n}0҆+ <%4-/%8$kBE٩{~DSǏB|WDvk˹兩Baff%;xE6;s$^tj~Q϶Flm.6!Q|Ne([kwtQCnj*wQgJgNۮw'R$< KGm$$\yjdд"cGycSG70:0ҍzhlvlT;GOݸiVWv-8뵚-䨙8 nqwz}ϻF)h|W@nxjև:js6\jt _oSDY{l!0I$JfM|tDˤHlEL@m+t*ՀUgPE d9J율I?6(@C=~8nB.>65&u-p~:X (x5 {H0O\xzv\b¯=:~U?19 cbd@hI `" H8D&+ [,Ԏ{+CZеF8y2O|H!G| 9a0#*$4$6 /iV8H oEI+ Gюo1 l %(*NH Q7 [blH1,`Z-Hx  Up@g窵ZّbxNG2 n:`{`aS.'@O! .bnw=U fv1(aY)1CEkzmjpfXhtZͭٙ\!p8Q)-l> @.!-ĮqԁBMs~v7]L؄P~Q(֍ztjrP-TۍV=8VϞE޽s #Jobb p>Crl D+/c]/GgۖykwoC+zcRQ>7 |Zq*:\Z^Z|pG*XT ǥǔ~2 s"ZHn;@%DL%mTWo2laS׶K{NF77W?%VקԶ$-~C-9jDH lăe$d4rq·1K<2誹jE9T;Sf}2qnF,҉ᄆ[~̒ ͨc)NnJkd?@6Bp _买&uظsIrU7{г@6u%*VoI fq !H h՝V1$L*u?TO&GFƮܒ=BDM3߬=tC"j f̈3w6AͿ<яrh;ȯp lF|XR~98<-)pԖrG,tce?o+d6}OeC fqi3&+mD1i=lP|/ц`o:|9'm!:~wsx L.L+=:bG@%Æ7  <`Dky+D N^3"tP.DE8yZk &"j!6Qi$[vW5bP!?f܀9Wb=,x+ ٲLtB'0%"e'2#v5xJ AdcaZұEjYnH0Tn8vEqJ4ɆGphi;wDY6B').~$ħO屍BϢA #jDWCmұ+Bvsk\7(ZX#+T&ETG؃r:Ntzc+0OUqabT$Ӕ@K$EAx}_V'RXEe*A"_=X;X+򒶧o+zX@]Qs`= (rs΅Kd'Pa()IpK7'fjp |ɧڽ^ dr>5 ST&]}&] d*U1Xj0mZ\>۹|2zԥ\: ߹s ]AZnqc=12AģQ̥'XAfXerxB FmUcrI+sf PR2M|)ղ2^ed>Ml!C#ϗEjc2N!9Zm: h#8ls4&ŦؾA="GaSZ_-,֔uqXZX Db,nx υ„wg܋E" W<R[&ϔKkL/ C@x)d;fBNȚ}I 4Ps{F[ͶxqΔJB[Ѓp/LqoPPP5ȷؗO‡H4a74zf؋`cYncEA66>12~ +=^w=3n~4A?܏'2K4, p<) "qx*)^V {~Hŝn IE܍Ft"mz6"ri Xv=[ٕ^ yB`U%:E`~# &|RL2>7괤&EHP2F[q!҇p7 ܨ(8FG: J7f1I5h=$jFf @3uU(wBux?dAwx/Ds3Bi )ư@X>Ac{~ę#t;~oбTz^R5*]-=%FTO`Gn5ˡ$McH{NJCaU ltDc NoT>qy] 'd+釺XDQj,;DqCjZ=dy(р̷d5(4LlXb'&zDxH*ăLRzmPX}@%,?!CAr:3>)gk &).иXYt<~cI(ív`QGgfz+d.Jn|<4Dz-z5MZ E^("Gj8<^N4[[K:2}J3+++z*Z@(zHxSv5H6ѽV׿tԙG!@n[OĔ _q lmNSIJLVD]54p{%V[~߭KuـA,qYulGR\~xgd C>H?F\PG'b|h酈8p, TPKHjXǙ҅dpzOl iQ&dS 1Z3-m%1 BKQZ'"t)@yR$b&ѴB?3ﰿ.pa1 '\rbqg5[,U)se C. K0vH wL,7:( ==d9j8M8z5"1zBg\XȗswY%OR:]c~n|ftG]>H6xp(Ε 8$uYmۏú34*ː..hW"P` )`YſL2 skO S%U&Ft),٘D+6q @BEo*{HS?(9DJ?̮FZ˃`.؃@VBcmvK >B<M:XT0])hӈK Ga oHU2Rbh6#FC@wwwA &V : }]prp3Hxr$lݘaHqc>W\}8JBcF%J?<Ԇq?([>A^n9s/~|pd*ntcЇpשvRT7T QI ` D~^A`xA@QV[S;bsOm]/ }D s1*R۹t[xhysW-g](ZH. e%'g%c.\E[8!0ω)p{n:GFDbOuLb{>䱃).nG\8vTooKh!_!UP%A~ ŝ{gggZ]YY9{X2}pP\]߁"&:h0 "P^KMWi[@kx#QL+xV+n$: b|yI])ũMur,:v&}ugl9t@:)$1 ʝ^. 2ҎyT.H7$.KWHX;'⨔52v -Ws^H%ꋮndʶmj=4j:$qFֵ߃u,.zOdb=ұ_cxT*2PsNnILh^Njo ц۫eFee׻Mm)_GZ xHD/9N%#mz+7]$~ǝݖn55wG+Ea%y7?.6i\NPɟ&C?y< euKb&5Eb ֺj|,q{Gu~}?ޓX_e҂Se++oW*9g2ѸuwؠL );d wa! օԡWu'u3xo.>8(!qW^}Wt:v].u\&-L;k7c UEy}0h{~ *~bpн fOy=PZ{ .2~{ܟJ ttbaL]!x tBuʄO9ALTTšNƽ兾 qq |m!D,`cm@f T/> C}TMy1(:{vnDO E1 !p$!",bǢh^] 1Ar}ա@gm߸6^P>Z56wVW%XQWR!:a ۢs&2P ;CӱdS <39$|4YIẑ*Bk a82G5iM C{E0Fz|вpv[ŮppSqS]sm_ޠ^%b6HiN!볳pPM%2n'ʕru9C׶h\ZY>N+m:m4Û9hSflQ<&bA2CWġh7QרS`yuZH67w;,7nfӧOl߼`oo?L{Un $FUe.I=^\ܭ eF ¶qA}GWTFON'#޼])׏[bɕ;Q> d":Uޖ*<^EA%v3Bد<,L0_8psΝV6;rܩSΞ)Z&f>>!&ثP=0JgDPpQ>ِeQiY=`n`\:n#PC"~3dC zl>8 ,4?`D'nCpo=JYwӵ#"YCCUPm-3="JH0P&wtĕݠP8{]7]@ !9"&aiL^&x5K>44Y.>&+N>oRj(檳+2ָkՑ^Z6Bc/1G9\ނNt#S c|Mq0e=f4f+`r0?FV/DQ֋}B. ! fO#1⩇d7 E=(bC ~!'qV< B0nh6}_^ H k k4 2o{OppHHvkBULG3R17Epتv{ac$8|$@C㉔Vw^WE(Xa9"|f.ߨ+J<Sm:(ex ܁Bh Ǩ:p2n5۔@)",Bb {2jf 奥 pتCZ!ަwClA)E4 LsКh$Ym֋;q2;\2<fLĹs+^mg!}EbnG.I1-mߥlaOlعeH"JRp) ])~ ʟ 2'bO?]o?VOÀ&va/[ 'ȾD:CA2A^\@$48(uYL&4.Qͨnd?>l'M¼L.S8Z"0 D'd߀o`U{-T }H O6 D{bg$u}ײLe0FKG~E[pe*)ٺTo8)Y$`7mi ym+S0ofh/; b;MEzs)}KiOI.XFgy!u\Z;\:dE|62Hԗ z C0{D\'y~~"ljfMQZKF5AcppoX?P ʐPaQ3O;W[&|7~277wȑٹKCL4鿃It#b["C_{o߬f<(chcI iqJ>NEk,>qsMSVÆJTׇ~w<\b<9W a-t;j\@!+%:?;}g3HZcsuk HT8`$*H RsC@@w7"9_cZ%=JIb y$r7 "gZܬצgrt1/\,8Iǧ LXYto93ĹFB zw:a4ɊPfJcre!mjnΡeN[GJ)up[7Q| vf둣fSxUVv^-S>W ^|73vDBĤqC?>ȝ>x2O8F8M? $h#ǝbbsgW'tu6R+mxdosVw~ŞK_ʒˇW 1;A R#qV!N:u CsǘzEF"z%Wi|ʟC!Sb}p=WIu-yGD7Fg1'Pm%T ^ai0ҤH7 ύR(&BMC}5 TuǢ!Rɿb/bx8WjXp e ل01iA1d>gN-jwO@A"J%3A5Pqc82xOV{6*cŒW摲'BjD-͂Ozk<[FRf(˽'A?@Chv[{򃜘ȊTEb_W?W_V OˆH%&Ȩbi x7nsSKEK|B{H+o9 }xF)ܭhYi3ŏ緾ҰNShq1~w[o_[/Oͩ .}^L>T*Q(ΨV|ZLj?: ԕ8Lt;}:y!\>b= TnSſ-$;-iFڰn9~64/;Jo];[|͛woU3?6U_n$RHU?yR|w{/2Z{uAn ިkٰ}1P9y& %<'4_H7KPVB"V-wfffM ~A-va+VKu]xHLp `\^\Ywv!:uj73\-FgIwrUAߟ`!e $WFdN$3Ci Ƕ`T+5zէ`c-̞ Z>wÇ{x*/-WV] J5#/.C1w9NnUlZQϥr^p7aۻ09(F2 :}=!3v#I QrW>6ۭPn8\헊Əѹ=dbB{b] 7CqeY{E!cHɣǃܑ`?=JϜI^\ʚu ?PLkgX~^6 $m8Duf"ಟ7V0z~#oh4O? 54JLb6pS _53qkj_(yMR/2H~?ڏˉow_e {"i@HmG3-ׁн_GO;ēo^#p@!@`v4DQ$Oe_^/}ç>~'^~ +ӱrR[<}ѮW{O.Ν)ggҧ#O8S構^DQr -'+/Iڥ ۪NbDRbS ??BA͂F2D1 UZ ătTYY^>x[OŋK]x >C\BBʁ~#KϜPM(@v  T+]>y|:JATKg Ʈc=Ec(_-nVL}!Fя;;5T?=^&NΤ˜.O2 Z*SL.oy8D?wj핻h̹RPumT t.xPE vx\@d X i DebG>up2q ؙ' &Yޯa)01 5\㺍3/>Q]'Ōwpm LTqBg@n{o+e hҸ CuMoL~^e}1cŎVcN6;)=aʒv~ U7(4pb< =@$=fWv*fߗ<ш{l$!pPy:M":!HXDV S) D6k1 e#R,hlwD)X/:C!:"19~$Xih ]"rJ5kN/Z] FC>R8;4FOI%,1$`SH2*DRŝRfՑ4I+;@՞ RJ!Xk AMqg %RŊ݀Xo x &rt`5i%D(hGҤRL1$B=TTBS^d:9&ыXsmT97IhdtWGk}>7*uv.͏7:Y8$CNM0yl?H͉\,T8ψna3XsUx(t(qZt=uz7#^vjNܿE!DUEX'EVKߺf= K>8RA=Q/ŋ"iӱ== iʇ䜷߾ßN~VjSSH8Ӭ"dy?_h/]^>w+wַw?ąѧ.\;7wKXUϽ𡧏esԹ O=cg߻~PODgf[v` "~bv?WNͤ*H& OX<ƻtZF7 jMA$H1hi$YN?Wٹ3zk{wD(sGBT"xߤQW_~Z'^HC*[f B篿&VO-O޽x*WV y<~Y_pBkKﬥPLIy fx̱sG>3w3Vέd>pu)s?Յީ歇{Mxu/^8M_*5n`yf;%Zj׼pig \!xKQuR.  I &8V0uKӥ:gfO?9UO]{ba>]);?}.;Տ= 6Cm? #* ?+o>Le2{ mԤ Pw,LhOW+;SOz )IΗ~0iAs7Q 7?:W[Ei.0IA2cy^-!abm*F[;Ux]3h677"\_T6B{BN+6ڻ.,$#ހF#t"j|SOwWoW/pA/om|ALV"~OByk/hΜ<p ,Vr Qd ɸ 1nSA  A"P+"afQz\+ CK.wZ@RPg j# M g)o6\j<$8v;/7_}&3z=v#\Z]_HBF8d0(@*A"_ !oU-U7Y`M s7vK;S3~Us';wk ^"BčQ1T`}khjw"t1UfԔx"?P4 8^z]/,`F5x|V38*4捭kD<^GQ11xIz1^BH@@" p :TQ>"3.B~xVun *p%X/܀C?L%?#/V{&A$KJ}Iq ̉sʏLhlM?s?⽛wކ5rѩA2UomG?wZ&wK{¨ON Tm<0UW`(&򖢪EI\rgb~LQj؅fdp~SS`4uHEix cRn@z.+_T0(^zsL%6 M%^PjfTM{>8hUvJ䳶]9RGv_,O~vj1jT+aLk`vw/ g^-bO:=4p&J/~>( B&T ]#J0m_H|,BXz'-2⁏?trNrwn5Mx^jn^/, H{yy֭rew~v >=jXXx)%!;8u&{MW8R#CuB&h$$NMcz6Ot*Ձ.mxvϸ%N,mn:-lZ ز}>-MTihX@9ϡwor';Uf"M~?Nث]1nOtJLscsEO@nl~ X5Wȃ c3)(jaŀ#@U gcp]#(L5>!? HxbzX*0 K&0C&GRfŝ#]Li},WGYS6v^GxrM ojOIp"%j"! $6ͅ[/܈ܡÁK(xC* pHDa4&:A9!_BV2і낎\fx>5{Oֱܻx #g@ 9q pT-jQxѬy$HS|_?Hc:a9-d*Jk]b Ft\݃(r|c^Em3(4luhy5ffR. r7 -@8{p, 8_DU;|qvœ9vJuI #1$Y^'` /xz\w{ޠ4%8Z">bpiNm{#J Z#VGB(/`7gQ*CYZ\F;l0J;{Y2i!gx~ |[;doƝ)#q9B j6\O[mشK+prnnv:fyoޒ["gu%:vT#qv;|;n킐/{0aDoȇ+'0I%`-M#z0mlڴN,XwsqJleHjuᬐRJE]K әx(.iKU I9"#kiA"?@{6ȯnW6pqt6g=ݼ^{ Dm=d}`副q'6`Aܼ֮RhԦҏԍS#5p#k^phV$ѸjI[\FcOn:Ė1AUlڪw}ݣ:fsm^yΛG؇G|+߯0 aM(5_5>peFqjT)9jvw>$Q( a[[[(ARCFP I$7JpgS.^~*g ɩo"x#ΏU~l0r޼{ J<(E@RpPs/LVw{ QVބc;:R|ن2hסtLhUp<;WX07Plln}8H!i"T?_jp2==-W`j6D"j#D@@^Ekd-pru)mj[tkAvG? ;L5LCm32 7@Hr߼xB7'"HZ*d?3σ/D qr]烣yJ\B f6RB :NP 賽1 x t?;$T|S/w'~c_?8_9LdR,BT5?o~w|K?FMDӔPsHB=T#Br 31b)j HIF7gTI]Fh<gK yh[_ R 3GV#xwg@6]{~/) Z^'2د³=1g?$ Nj7ԥA;:j(,نQCU" Lb[یQ]p7f@Fv_+؄'HhD<{TϨlS</_:\p At: 0RHlh<&5ne}R}-?L="0m()" FVwn|#g^^8}1MY0 `1JvM1b^@tx[E4\i|A+`HWUiݙ)͢"D\VC=4d^]`ĝxcn&l8qξM=YI%ضqGNfǻ텚dW}sДWU}P ] %` OsgPa(m\Ƒqq>( /QwXM`iL@wew Y:a04yҼq( 4!ӰDx6aWaWK=H7J9b5tt ^kd.=|{ݟx"&:Axж S+YE~^,PDݭ՚|*T" ;rxKZ^>7W:h޹_3;w}޵[p !Ģ)QD> qtyCT,q@ʐ1TZQwpoݼeoom$?:As ;Í<KOҳ`w ޒZl$xivjתJ8ǝ('g\>Z{XjqiushEѵ $A bRK @y"[ֻU$Ddxt%l:pSW;׮oO-id(@-EX>HvW؅LH H? [@)okڃ^:AeN]*n5Z(R~+KZQ Նfw&O/> B`H~5D7̉ 3~t uD240.0'p^J=fj =NE‘QT(\{ j'"֫~tY-;2|ՃV`n&pl>'cFD{QO";~M!Ǒ6Z C=ȞґT:ɣӬnOxou^:{խ 2~"o OD_o JZd;&0\$r j. uYgr}rD뻯|ֵϟpwPTQ!v<YL.~ey u:],Mзy a-_WSN4ZZH/92*םtɨ87v8jm9 I^/u'R&*=e`NR-|"4& /m"7@ژ$ \i.G,5$5־MOm;2oqbM`6?9|_;5.^4V7_AB 42 HjI=`Cvsdm8!*pb*g+Q$C1gy'fPV4 ZqoB\\$5v$w@=BIa {7 [c i 6bȾZ7]±G-!I-21_!5t<%\JqE#MðaWmH ,.%y6Y!!6 g[.xm}5h-7-ҥ1"xGl0` $ c'>܀^G;𶷑EzDag`< d{tR`2G> [(BuhfC֋d wpXՠ$9"2j3(QQ[V6  ! (%c "Oѯq`843䐐~GP>RI^-5P}8* rxc Cf?#3&OP }o,t6.E5]x( Hi -0НEF I"pOzcj`8h&u>hέuNFYT@)4qx6ˇFA7dvv0%SgQR R|/bQXARunH W.j<g|&R^8s ' \̨>Gf}/_|e?SONݦׁVxL*htpl0 N-$̫8Mui& ܎g)4n˪CBЍ;[ąQ2IxЄK B~T:vz^y#h}3OG#1wzV8½IC*Ћi(QmBM nlBFTJ^kSsay\y71W/. SV.;q̩ǎ;v !DaIE:Rq29ʓ(gl#*@u ǎ/\.e҈O—!~ZoǜXI?A|2;x&wQrv6^Y_^YZz c%!՛Oao7Ѷ7-rlzŲ(22`٥%I1 M(5Nz@u4&,KC~l Nйw}$mOD؀ ?E9vyT5Gfe7KC W}(K ᮠoD+H" (90La3đ4pC`lx G+ Pc[]Gt%߀AKa0jCb8G!8u# SCl,4 p%NDWO> -KKf~:!|rJbv5ލb[AG)4@N;@T:PH ՐSh>E6GH7Tches)%٠.TO' aC$wzNɿaT p3K7>tiv X,m#wvId@UkgЎ"p?i3Nx-tk:׉gcp/ӳWN4£A->P?hn~N}[w^GV=>i_/RLߛG\pP~׿k|od?9so !ek8j zFJp:oHtEP޵mȓ(̅lK{]̈$RXI`S! "S~.JМNkkwN >,cQ}.(^~b3׮/N]?@"Jlv6Rn@ C _cq^N}8vj?c{P궃F0ؕzշ׿}k7߼~cmczZugJ1~b6|t1{|>5,Fa|؆ C6R-Fm*|+*e4/ p| F(dѮmO3c,݃vk/.O,{al|a0^uo7>q H4(tPV2iƜGw.ټm[)JX9)j#J) rDQ"H۔Em@~Uܜ~)99/~lOKΦDzqF 9XShATԡ9%o8wJ% 4#zϢcF%Xx!e飃w̙T,h p=HAHݤf.b`We0 5:MIX=&Fw̭f#leg9ہ6QT8ue(AُMKv.G92Ck`FUYKkuy4? ѣPE5kB-KuQ6cF[ 2!F!7A$F&}mC5>n@ xslga߂irKﾶ} & H)99Bʊ!PX0L^J6BhFfi H2Lq~AoFvh~S Œ~A иvw(~HO #}zTqh vckQTf(huQR,^.\>[|嫧sjy{Ө#|*|=V-?Z"Y[yO@U9Ru`P9bL"<Բ9E8fAD<#nV`cETI9~eQ?<1 ?ʼnZΏsϓ!E¬?Er1Z܊ w@vv?brZk@kOEA_+M8|8_.XdW 񏆵 O-{>?vTci)Dt/&X(%ZAK}+Qb)^$&M,4۝ԿA(J*PO?Lv+{S_QkݭHjzkfp L4Z$mPd?C??񹕟H60&7/}7oTQz߬gRO]8M׺TvXo")${/|FQ"ij$+G.Gѻ۰J -?~o6T+Cl5 g=rkճV?n>lꓼɣ~-ϯFPo􇩳0}⅕TraEE$SB(1\}c>xdJw@8}l&sko^+Ǐ;L!S-ʁI, s9aϥߢP犹L2A )p/P"dN"įH);"]v?IL$` n)ӊB CD2 RޜFSG` ͵z0B}bU\Ȥf,N-?pb":WƊ*D`]?~|926y*u!)&"R Jf.cU8V59}l#N>|S˿¤mab_(Ve>BI_HRCLGD4E]퉻6K)N2nۃvL@6B3C(PU % $~Q r*H#vVRA *K gVQ jHA 6C[eUvk5x{}.Nf:Pu AJ/, HS%hr᳕/sP/ẪJ#< 5[jaf{wo(H2 9ڍJVR9MXUZX deVEh Ʃb*BpC@avh i[o\m6q4F# G|R+8[D-D'`psKD# ţ?t?'ZNv_O?}ǞΟ(͍"JjՏcb/#Bw PlU A777+N #B#0NPu*Xo+9l&`c=|pX- +SR~TATFRV7!f?\p1<װc H>ttG< Wg,w4}lHd:+@:N;֌,"HFCD/@Ynؼpeą7VTFhQ!<)PZgځT'tCzvnxC(lvH1ŲH X*T(6CF0NϨ_$*H$HL=~ #2Gr 6.IC?75X7?v<0Q_ E<>LC@A~jJJMhኄ ,RPKG霓UD5л+i]$ܩ-͖D#u-U>U}IX x߈!ۈhc&b]av#Yj8=U,HI[xS@{:hs[в@=Y= \>hAJ%KεFM~hIi>%a؟ 9hR{j?;3 OgҦkA ~.b\% dĭ//?"X:ER`z/~J*3 dd|fcq{.Y4Ҹ`<3}iBc~oϟ_` ?_髑:48d2ݑ~- *o(SpuCW|FF޹ !&3sǧQag\LJW. g|\[iRQ牘kˈʔ>[k\SOd;(> akfR"??:Z}h4=d$~?GJ1DeSd8?xq`l`aە+s g >O H'Q΢(* Fe˗._fj]:neqnc^yoٜx7۽Z1Gv.؛. A3nKO@vjy@uTc3 j7Nj*yŇrR6~8?qtvyX!I Mhb/;/> 0a&'#MY[}j:7=S@rԥSTì nZkXުi[HWTl $X"#y).wth4 HSU91;.kS^E\t1.jb*eiBkn+VL~g/]/~u9|[׿$i~w=7s?Gz7Q!X +h-$QP!/pQ}e`̇bi`mXơkFXg*[Q~ﱟVՎ[`s*)h7jk>Tc2m9<2-Z܂ X߽xvõ~ gٕEZ/c\0~SAjUiU*.BqNkqqejsB +`"XG@WK:KSQB>>^ $\ 7,%FeJkE؍4/Zy.CahEcsJ!(nS'4_/:x"I;h?l7"J+|o ?bz0GáǃbTIoZZ' 4u9?/>wiɋ ,nF2A0mu~F!)S&gCtr*ѻ|R:%ԭ ɫ${hR?VDj=ʋk7 " 7U:`Z!hH!OR]-⾄J 9) 0z?~1~[7֣<0 R$M4%K;M?;})?>uOO_|r.> S3ɯ~յzjPA eşpwwQv5g_O\95=fh?~N髯=F`ANq5͕ .F,%cՕ+g_x\D X|,$̈́ |zi/v>[/YCm O\X8h>'?~^rx%SS7<'gbH3qh'?+oVǫ G 88kN-G>4f^䇯KE?M}+k LT{`t0fpxf$>wq9޾ysGsmqi!}(!FmzD0:-{&1u8cS!fl-&vprxYb{q G9{fx֫1I(}aOp +V>S5íA E€gtR63.>`7 S|3<1PGRk#I펀bxNH&M,6#=DDk nt>_΅gv/~Z?=~|6؋mnBXB;jk]f?sȧ>z|o'3b.J9O.L!$ IQKR-#ؐb[SJ+.Sz1$yNܐ#D= +Su؋mWD@)DnXu;8 Z{1@P`7(E R:vc!)!X.b+HpA"a@R88~lԩO=9TyƂƵAbEH_HO@tg9|LS3/z|c gp@n tkK+}'9ŹNO=}j93_K~  ߊB2}aɄFb.:g+j\s~?{ʿ{‚U^ID{0f2D ZK][h9{!fOswGwlܽ=7Bga;Dey#&ʬK*oq$Uik"->X/ոIb0ܵ:W@zQǁkܒ $ސ9mTwYȅ/l9ER ~da}o݌$Q$j&1[[! sO}|,榾7S"잙t y] YDTܵϯJ.&wnm:@ Rpǣǀ3@!K n܏<E{BUlNc-Kh~ so?~˫_µ|͟g5;/}Z$>`Cxr";}z07{twݭO>}1 \y4Jڍv ?zo"t٥]:QPw>ruB7i CQAq{w; p}[~}çt~7_;2 ,\_?ڗ_;[ϭ^] ,~a*5I~+@/UIP-H%l#0N? [?Ͽ/|;_˟ԳS`p""nb@t8ق~̈I,0[M[KiNgXf\$tb_WnW}uq+M@p<\#[?fqsg߻7o?q|q:4g3,{99MىJPBll0Me02FHdV<=3c\r{z]Js~T7[g cȇį߲i"$(fʎ:j^,s2x:jDwMD"kss~tvŢi(?uwKsWY\[V|~l) *C%ɋفaW\+2-tmYI%=o6kt#YQhXGo_?QT(On*ED[ Qk߲'fNQW}R gK-7g ښzs!@&rÈ TLGWo7ۀ2[hr Lf89wpw=qxh[J/,E@Hc=>x.~w^~Kk cc6oqyZ԰<wOt (j(8j^#L!Xn6o!)OꫝkfsD$"@}!!THAD*8PA'FT`Omsscguc $ qC:} NJ/T^zzX)B!(GsS_$c (L:8V3kۤR=ǣ˝ݝl\>W#&QHhܧ7S}S(NI(`I|3pqx!n!5:$ƶX]RI]6GDC@MLuCsT LZ{]a@`־]ۆ1cCGxF wtvx\H.CHղ`Ý~S e]vpO|.pl^JO)-(Ȋ;B}mxiy9v^TT:Q5~O_B:Kkoym]gg BBf&ps8ˍ> k!(nUI&Χ*FI"c':@u۱gۖ+хz,0@G乼lx+'Fsi\epKˍb~yqj.{yP;:]V1~Ziru[ZBpv{5(4ȣ˽Y,*Q8x JZNm*bdw Xb7}AA(kNh^#eGgi T=!&\Qߔ-oVftv٥++W"Kt4_@VZ[c XL߱{aИQ.2{".ot]f"dP难r+ 3Tbpe-5'\[)S!?n.>yyzlTJU[eȀB<;I\_\֞r:D!Ν K?7?j'bWWϯ-٠K7n;J-O-ϝWgՋ+ski<^;9|B)2hLьC5MUz 륍3som?{g o8rQ&6*`G<_ee'Br y~%H"%"'x믜|+>ok /D2H%Cćv.HuZ<@L @S;:́C '(w'neIL`ՐQ'}RY5 ?g7ts6H|\]ZAKڕO_(wȖv^ŒK8f 8LcGriOy*T4}<8e \+zwOYR^p^Op13Fڛu\-gji(]|wϡW֣$o4~̊*]wmsL\ ntJ˻YY˝ ukԗF:v]uGˋ cu-DPJM-MRs[=~dju!DkAw٬t5X ,[^W3։`@OEW2fЮ '-xF z,?\<3,|t\z؁S&&'Y*{M$aEq:_H _]Y_C3;TFUr˭-)j+S F1j (UOgk-}K "ErbxwĶm;FzY$sn>?;vvd!-"f{y"/ r8D&w`&QKɍƌrㅸbBTYA&cty./snxvq)JC.W1P n C)7oB,BZO=Q_d t-Í_o]PyޑWD#|E>6笠\*oJ")gsrgPn& p|'.,dI.-^<誥ρYِaBH&)jlŊsW/_^Th0H638(pWbZܹk\0ݛ! ͓]G$ :Nw[$RM"22/ \|?0kEF喅H%N7!*(ˮN,._FX믯+lB,NA T[^P bNEO8hgI);&f8h^\HdSF}Dx3؁.5fձOݱuj4 N nbǧ;[~*"+J$`F4~ｳT[T-{߱\\£Imw^8@JQ)]N'1[-` g|9 2•K3=]a(*y.TyztFP ] PʼnkPWҷ`)?‰"p*Tx@w~٦+eˑ7}~W<9L~SZ1&5C4S}.WM̜\sVq5Zh8Ѿ?gmΆ%L &T)1l2[ʅ#"A5T'~ 0GGަ=KHYJzvHd1?OTX]lJQMQgrYj&P"D$\䶈Ҳ񐙆H27HEr]Pw]F$J(OG0t4 Y'2D '^RGv߷{XcѶ;&;@}*}pO׃S}}ww֎G:ܺBcu}O#B&3z– l0K,Q4Le!㪛[ Q*"w-u1[(.zeħΦ be0Z`gJ SM"ff-Τ萪(`{j/nƞc:ճkάJa]N]X<K[3Xc,sV#qOG7rUVZ6ŘP,Q셹BåTXJ49|&#.:w$ 0:$x*14jn}PcѮ:ȑȔphUZ{VY@KTdDM)|Fŀ,T 0L5+1A#@a{-Rf" 3)s&m`@4헯>{E׆m{&б{l9g?$.' g2cm&jnJW3 읻]o.mXCg{Q$P7}ՊEi;`y6^Tv;cS1AW >V/|5\#nY5 s+m4U{]onʶbѠ=cwTC.g=G[hz5s)6;addszy=߽eU{lH 28Q<+wTw/](-ӊ]ȝB΅0gfJLPi0ŷ$ijȈ7>uK{wA"WrYk6o2Ud'2W_l&ߣ d X$6W _)J'9WUC[{@Ĩ2J7;/5ѽ{ vuw4ס `앰UDRts\@ ͧ Ar뵸^RYNqގzBT[ (N S=" ծu܂ rlrq f'Ď􀓠 EȾ_Dc_Ldo=D<=mk5;@ 2pˊiITSӻv:=J6;x׃ܩiG݂z/ce\yu(|񉹧.%X8#1;{Baم%uy+I&}lŌ5 5ʕ<ۂg_˧ўn 0˳ѓW9+*usS+9n[FU3>5€>'5:ʢG^o?;^K/|M?zHj!| pe WLp@pt\n ~dj=5SgtlZ__ f 9_-ǭVx *vfµDNA+c).bh/e#xK}ׯ_ ]@ЪFj rK(撥r./w'(U ,'ˍ6Ep5Vf(W6VDj ˑB|Ƕasevmn}.K*媨m sA~QMjUUѪuavPTBgp$ &&ǤZmk%ogD.g<ʙ?m!u)tc}|LQ*XT~.sEY.EIAhyϓIDۂ׷8+֚@4gt t^NtN lD'\+ֲ5=XaImnOVU€RD/y Y(yi! 3wRtէZvQ7U[M_OgV Q8)Wڝ\~C`fEU,D.f]-AXURl=|֩AnS+F1{ǡ-ݎ6b%sœŘD]`V/:K~~he^n$\<[Jj}9MǪM#{loIj~ᚾA Ȗ) Ꮱr7"ъvVih|ރ@)B&^uf!{MϽ|ٲZU ;MNG{RyUdFh74j;s.@ 3,{54SQ&Z(Q`Zܢ_fЏF]/oZ4PSJ{.( +rzacb䅕<-a^P_1^q('%/eYήof[ ;{pv{Z[0x*`-B懼6x?VlDU5RE.6%$䯬o.22YI!.ej9[c޹#VVMF6@BL`0iT-LJj}䮣Frׯ[K- 8TuYPjII@bYkԖJ4::۶x}k^U󒮒CZv^hNwwE7*EpNg _|wh`ɠuYL9]-r3vщOIoo?f#a}i-L#tZ${ذ̬\w%g2)V8&8(ղiYxt啠qN :8\a\Ր2ڱÏ>r/\[W#.VS*G?t;p?يWD7[G,͆}v{%Q |u<::}։ӗޤC*jͭZ>p_uT6mh15,6mҨꠠZ{؉_} \a%m#!K2 @Q\aX*W#r8<+k\6?zIoxd.'.T6ª "`>.u5]TQJx옘=u~6=Spُ2<3s}fh>[eqpCac,(frFeZ1?1݈I 3o$& |[/\ J1Cȥ"ZTUC!'%#oW9'w#6{H|bBR&ZXX&@hQ D&J3H_JSgPTDKGmÊj)3 [pzR֎-]/|~o~P1mX"wJ/`Oҁ`j BlB};Glsǟ8W]0m޻;0[ /gSԩ\%k*PNekws># 7g)_O+o|囏.5׏pݎaD.0Ʀ! LAsnfcȚ,_V*u=^ \2Ihh-d)Ͽ|~TyuRbTZGFzLh[Ĭ)Ke>Ց6CH_RK`/Mww& lؤ66jQdV&L/x1tV\tmz;>Rmyh D,lZK+mb\_z,[qzcMpbH ;Y旧gXGOhjg;'Ω{1yݽx;8zܬ,.[zPW`bPx޹y;v?mG/ư.VǾۏ t嚩qyIH<51*jDawYC+r:;{]DJNߙr%z+^֌RvyxDu¢ՁOB_U^[5 Trv{߰c;$zĨowΉcw3q`Wޝw{;n{#!/7_{yq4v}zRTLфSiH~) zݺgq 2p-Ӆ&zpVv Uȃ{46e+h E?geufk5{M}V]#S>_G6We\ CJzcɸN,`X2)DD蠸Ņkׯ,hP^V1t#~i Xޡ+ͱ)#, dߛm6:|foM3/^>{m{d$?UܛY<yCN}>Uzހ}:5"iuZ"ʦ ]55!2G>GHq.]E+D}Zrv Mn 9Wgݻk \˷Kg`[\GΠ_/‹B4h8$Mv eˊs-@ CFQPt@ *>%cj6.9HX,)nYfbmkfCK4SfW_@(װ2L!G  yfd ud|Hhp6ݾz!mKqtŘ:H9nXm><5kKcl26Ж3ŇR΢^YӉ-#}zZ_!v09X-A{eDZ(%EG(ӳs1SQ ` 5j":Ugrثzab&ȧ#|]V}5X2rJv٘>v``?[=SX=~p;?}eb~q2oH0cD fL|3,jmooOV?1{Ο;Oۦ ~_5])Ǚȱv/?.-NXpU]Kgb4f(i\A`5tp6],Vqidg @+"ީop;vrH侀B+qbH捶l23noZk\FG5Ao 9WSzj9g,F%R-agw8]bSx^6 ֶZdnme9H2'.[f#(r1hXWmk1>okڍڕv^$.oq3VӋ!Fd]Z bTmj!"xoPkf&$BD7 S ]a ?{%TCބ*z*J?ן>ovygI3IX9 T#rh>{2ӿW-KwK*Ӌ%a&0H;f2^YWuY~a"Ssq=*.k˗f􎮅4|PBosىh_']K3oeAo%24:%J]:quWUTV΄-P Y`?{ -HC%tI(U..'GS٤/[]6I٩Rק|W 5l < QK&)2K4p0ΕXB giN@8]% *3ã6#W\*+)x鱄1 8J !h=.-/'VVm4X]MJG P.-bRՆEz ΞPյx~ek╚I VzZm"jfaM`^K55onbNrf9yesvpfRƿ3 X_9. n D0QЖ(J 2&*qp>H5 .UEF<ØͥfN<< zU5TWkAhh+wL(+^% "i3򠄬IA-]L츘hQ߬:=ڿJ\ݴEjPն6'o~t(Ls_45t; _}U;O;[ׅyg˽M>LC46Zv 6c>فYbHl`$[I?'IDAT53- #ﳁtJ=_!c6ّ6_^;\(e?!Pp2 TpݑHD:L#nyE8-2$\V7Cn|]L䎑gWt>7ו\zmް;ǡ[zAV^]9?|" @!yK"B6bmj达=󥗉Qad V Ri7(c-#PPȨ;"w&BN pCŴgwۖvOwh j\ Rfzjq1kҙHF7080N沸|79=ZQY}xWY{\>2Gsj ~+d3 ut c>o>oWO,*ͽ4;yZ_Ԋj}Gud#Qo+J͆R V̎GW^dU^-q땗+5v-{{1V|>=H\K. H7%s߰tJ=]bH(\K(R>zoYX(:5tڃC]8svAA G& }=Db]G{CCwע5Eh~ Ԭr=\BXSF# 7ڴ&'[-i8E~Cɗm[Yژoh7iMCk7Rrj֦o5)rDQU(A^6 t7~e`Z;ق޳p :(Oh)XltQGZިrAk!bӀd6"[WMs >Sܸ%䊨*b (Q/*e3 %ؖTkU &,(CJ4\oDIʥׇ.lC2:G̵ل@{ʭZEHYLL `PʴǙ *$5 ]Bapp. Z `<Ȧ;n,$-:PoՙBPu=Pͬ0vjutzVBtQ,拀m̮TuZSP7`n[5PnfBy\,T@ZΐߒX* IsJ%]Kc 7fY@IB~~DBZ]g5MV[5ybQc5JP M- )VH+DEãm5-WVWYfSg{x@g W+[#b TX ,t˼}&O=hgpg gIN2hB!yhkONN|_D?椭v{++5v!\ۋAVc~78\58mXXK,\_2:ͻǏg+'Ξ;Ο^d}ΩWW+Q֤:Q|gYeAJ$K%uP&L^w١~i)c675O;O=',T:?Er-R+O*D4SDf `sbP:247Dڜ C+m6Gd4qD#dCT76'j88]2Iyzh0ŌOA4drŭ۽1m"7! ^r 7gPqs{)c9~,:]'MO5O~ SX~xƵ[i>Gpy |3:PS%oUKNT#lT1IP(Lu= .KjC#^ݭM ŬO9~lFgYˬTY :rɒb-DF4JqA$wh `Z>>6xm)iPPMN}NSz}p ccNgsiů\\N4{Rp|srvR_O7pg~l/:Y;_z֎`6 Vy7er螽S[^Y6J+ x+?s F]N5VIU|2:S_hk7P7^~Yt."|}̿@t~?ͦTg]8˅́7,q~_$Dn)n2^SmbGYgp8(svd 4ޮ;mVGGn;/O:Ӈf !:\k=~ά?3sSD_^Q܉L]*f3!S,rNo^J&)V]+K ƢgNٻ ;rms {)%3_EJ ҎFne|pǑ/ :h(zğݐ[l7{7Μ<v:ZV=pQ˩s:`fU_δbOρG牗g(I4ʖ{̗6&AS{lA+7h3mpoo}eiAV/7ɍnn,N7Ig՛+wm-rh9ܛ vDK_^P+Z6"3Sp!?O>=o#D䶠k& >Kp׈|ٰ`6tP~E4Pda]dV={ zPTksJMYw -jL&rXY(sI*!aqvO.HeVT=> fǢ`yj DU; `TZ.djkg] WGV*2>O  nls;ۡ xUO!B3z࠽ 6\U)庯i16 }T6\ OCu}t]0J(R^Wܔ@D8ogЧnլLJgVoy00EL@.(5$O$G¹nL. iZ֚^3 \#!|TabZ"Dkvtpάf_o5YsMo{:\NPOB1Qfײ,]aZ!Pu;Z6CF &`Nt @Kȸ\a5k7 %R&V(=>+Wg ,MvN^9Qǻ=.0sS qvd-G>d) X9Wl(T(,9^ox~sdj0P?w ]]{w_:G''h~UuZ 2s*ll՛I#M!K.K~/MrrDP>osW҂Kr4h 4{'2Y&Ex`]Bv>Z8t8N"İLd=o<^Pa>=K)lg/̭d&; s4vͅ3Z "whbWmUUBJc5GDtBW)52mj/]wNL]_io˷v _yܥo/..ά,5!N4Zs K tjCB´+196n!pZ{B-[G]_6:5s4M1W|~sJ`uyU'R ;z\63ܕ%:ȥbndlgWZ~q6R`k@Teñk4j,E>ْ0w![{xbgD߾C#Ρ@G<6NK@2LMg?SQI%" %L%Gs_axv:KO^~Th :IBaQS2⩋{`3J,˔Zr-ޙTgk!>զ\{Xc淴MAo]˅+  O v_ 'F:*/XCk(;}g"ٵR R'T C}ԫ9u,(#@5PCgY5>wj~%K<,L޳|^I;UPkl6gGzwMW/'])2VlA=A\[wwe?$( EfLG_^{i9zv9qf!z־g` }-mt$>`k4:CP=l)Ń J]WAC˭٨ZRfj=s41ZM^GݽBE`OZ6+: bca+7ze}6{[~HnnwõE U= u&Zq 6 O1/䇢CT.6c(Vֆ! /V+MHs\x)Ygpcduԉf"  zxQ|~& GWG}DF"-u˜bn Xg^.V Z[:?}sy|p?~ܩRP-‚7Zrڼhs~eȳT%ZZta l+LNmp] ~LQ; ) <lts*%Ϗ zZ-Tن\&"*T*Ǹv:EюSH|M! uۘTipNj^}led/|(ԇɎ0D!{%QlArDi|V6͛_kK'oӠ G7o>yt2hRSPvVGA[C2j+{+TnBl,VE0dbqM4$M\\GX^%V>_W{!lvu](Y2G-HN@_}x6|32WF]F_Fdz=w:W9o\8LS|gX"suyzUI:)Wd"?}nf0H^Ny]{;lnߩK؅gNe]_0m]DF#d)\]*٘z}ff0r:務Lȡ4K {mLJٕCDy↯~7LM_:rsߙgsYeڊ]>ܻ݃wރc--829/x.,]?ӿk۟쿜]|OyR+/붾`E_^lN8tٟos?|_ojkg.^PmUZHcݱ},KB"xG7?=;dݥ z#Ga4l9GB^p<(L+;v{s緞{!Q4=Yq*B ^3`3tcrFA%c )&Y-+r.[ۚo<;lM[Ze*"Wۿ{̱X2 1#(5f6Q!.3^AJ`A!nNP jIL2?^S4 9Za:$vfNjq5XчHK_THU o@M&ۣtzu7;|-lӷ6k dDagcDy ;U^P!'YeS5$UeK#2ouOŃEb^ ]6c!V.y+ 9MDgn3m:C;uPB5FgW2+x Bvo o,l5XR܉-؝C@g~F?0 BZ7iUʺuֆx=X.Z|#ap+KkBvn ׮!̪t-5GFOP_Y A"&YfQ;J04:Q2)G Z!zЋVY@5pF:&}ۅkʕDe``&R}[HLumwy$e`hs:2ªE1 /^[ #g1xCRXt5`*Eŏ~Wq&L/B}}}[:_۽#S{^=s̵6w{޶z%Mdv<4| Aܳ؜[ :;JFN:QU2`O,,U:*I6=LŚ%_w,-̅%zKYURrg'u]=Ai :z*͠}Re ?=u »BA>]'α|']гB*6 |` _aW*OZ5U)p}DE]ep-wm?gf%~`u9p[9_I{-̌E|@P[q` NCtd؛*Yؾ+a1{t\ʍwW=vKO׋wj/\e6SMeUqXѡϟzf}>|>n'ٱ-Q+zIިrT$9x> s}tlak]{mMٴξTѝ-&.gWtnKs3_<[lZ,e꬜p ֌>wȾxO}32&W_OO4zGÕQ4Zwџ{ 83Z52}&`{,6 }?}6}w}Ja5oa&stj)]h=6!c+<zGOݹd5 AsPicTޠt_mJR#ow(~L#*AaEUax%>;wK;.8]QN `>ʡnqx*U{_2WWEAlx[cu5[K$r c+o!CB]n]fHUIt~>,ݵ&\CLHRUJ uB ne `L,Kl r5hY-Q[ ?Oo ϗLﴇusrOl~fZ^IV4UɬۂW.O(9~9Zm$تF'0 >DvX\^pT\54JBaPdKJ w|6_GlD PmWaUP)%4sU1Y)eh"N"h RYRsYLcX˰ѫ#V!EcXN h]SWi/|ZIj D1!)8ZG;JZą>%R4N=.I-7aJļ zeP+F]镚-Ÿ jkۦ^5P;AKy !*uaV NUڱpGҀOE _$$J%5/Yf„ T1 \oI*RJLO(Fr5%SO)Lxk-N33 貍V7(2J#kU6C]W`[받m|`$Yp E?g`(3 j2SB&N._ѬZ]ɻĹKxNI_Wv%QO-fr)ǖ@V9CT[rXDx1*7ҩW`S700ĕXYӋ+ @v,PJT?!:9z0M ' mv?4c*f դ=sၷbX_%9 $IzH !\+ ɱ!}hhM|S*m_x"Vh[&ѫ P$ycS {0tR"VaZ_3Zŧp XdqE / _GF$<<'"lv{ @EINjR[G;NyX4-WڎaFcR['^Op4cG{p)Bё&AL-ϬBf8Wx<^]X2gt8Sgn꫕jf9c_gSi;\gQ;!ja?.:/*~+Oɐk֖ n;QFvu[h5fCg֌>ؿX82.BZڢVPNKq8ՅUCs9B|T֗LQ}ѐ4+ яDbJ8:2@ T<Ƶcn" ?yo0Rr!k2y:yed4t\˄Ւ@6qsbrjo(@` ![b(koY^oX_chdڋ/u+ǞƃeCJ p `ŸH 񍳪 'a:&J<47z;Mc|GwoRi A KWe*~sL"R>G _CdluۼnY-I0\X`S m0g rqmT*h0ZsÙvl(1&R.!DrӠY$&Ҙtt|z(% VToznFF{CHѪgD6Y՗UpIB3R^26|<:j] O+=7$8&0²D)*W "  M+MM=vp5Y ՀHX”g9bmH I.kVgVw%OloC^O M*#-yN.O$0{-b:aم#26rS%cGMAq35u*kC=ֹ/BXjVtW. - q M"T9rBL]\K^hYL;DZ](ԋ6;KsO1_SI},Sy9Ӝ"t&R,<WufnPgEq2Oe;-Ji\"j1$Iw&b`,q)͇K 1/gJ @ynDdb|B) 0{T<9QuKnlޖ,zs6%J]M[nz͋=jiMhAÍwUtS5 $pk&RE:nVD0C0G2᳙"G \N9nB'X W8¨x-N /$]mLy~ʬ >F/J%@lbd16"&_{`lN_xwom|rd۶u߱lTY>tN]:sW =Snꡪy6 X>o@dV#.vTI_j6)@"~'G\X^8~zkszt`%kG Ie8nMe1 ,VExTauGt-,YDҨ7zԮ&ƅr e՗9?{3n͚? Bmw=o 8,VRTc|gʵt2><> "X/M]ֵF{kdr=*4DE`)"ӣP2´dU?<F8hsY}DݜXl_-&YV:li@zFTVbkѓk߾xezC]@";WP,L&#p%|0|)DPpIbO V ;@ #.ѢQUEi3xRgӔoLv']hDѺۃ6 Z&lkG ,@@U4Y[[E}f XF;A2b!Jehb7ta>nmO6/nAkG-T($G tD#Lo%廜ڼzm~-V;o vUܼ޼Vn9;?dUGԝzɋOp)$몁'#JTiW aϭtZ?O}}?''ƀFt ghI멜! Ȉ`A dA&SH4=z<t8K>˰m6$fQm22Tq Z0ps裄p8ٍvKe$z:(U`Inp(B y#&f 6PC:Ak.6 3hZb'Hg%a-9dGj3K[ 6cw6daȬ'hw{Bm"(>2!iBAP 6m}\P[SLB@k\HAIc™vPH,֔vz{1N2<:H!"rY@򬋩V%SUbaHAHՄٖ˓``ciLtKi̕jt{P<<4\Ņ󧫕tOʦְf@&jKʢDܪxZDh.%R8/uT}qf@@3pc6l8P9t)ud1B 5[ u~dFk~d-GI"t"V-hz i!,3AjO䪆IK:ڣ蠖4K|))-jNku`8:ؿkt>ǡ߷w,䵓 H{C&XBsdsC̅C6Q\)TAg[sl3眩]Ũ prܕ+W4vuv,+$N.yw yyLGP`8Wؠw|Z^^J8͆رNjdeUΩβ/r&w\)azޝ;W.%Rwޱ^8EW]VH4K&5J:fw0W]JQ M"6aٸTPsO^h}>=սb?[څϭ׿}̉h$Y<3Y(xպ$Msֿ_Ѱ}áV3/w3bX$^@QބѲ5jNһDZNj4CX@"~[n}VGJ`&G!Aw{Amel˙GN򆕡L4,zZFyג eP(~ol=|Qa36)+Հ,.~0cxKjzz _."R}RxI ydn^$~MV0-kE E[eSHsήX~E 'g3_y.3G2=?ӿ~W_*Q}4'ge5m=l 6#zL?"R)qgRYyE乒gUjt{B SϞHu4YAactuϥ_xSWL-F+ӄN˦ W6=]-}m@g9Sg37{mvL'3 NbKpT*rUT {3d Jٜq[?y3_jˇ?v=va.\ l5]\X_)BD/ǕӟZzk?a`G,N#`@eu 0)h53ފت#Ő(R-0sV*ad7}6f时ML3biXMc֚C$Pj 5jpSt;40cZi3p./e3ˈa}yHJ b` o1-`oh?m_oΐ61ڣݿhD!V Q&Sd&GcE M%x}v䭮 7~i'o?yyv3_WNت&_mVVͨÜVC׺ښGi.:-3JD-@L[/St3zXn(naV%I:br'k!h ݲչӋIܐ'z{@ rj[xSѩ\*hU$xZCW O \R:jp{WA))L!zn}ZZ?'(R!2oPN1\^+ZǷT^E( 2Q4%2ŕud Y(m.#qHU 494@2 ՚u>y!07B=wCV}h æ\E]k]f %7!PDS( |a o:mpEbN4ZdjMsnsR pjH@idӦ6Cʨ]TRG@Lk yTN*.!n!7 = 9WImƗCWHK;=u{xM6-{~≿{w{GU:Q&ejVzlmΘEneLi2dD/F29#>#jF͓[O>gf!TL?~j_BI]`h9ȤS(=~lme WNh!/b $skD;(O6Y^qoIY+~W̸{=!g ]Wt֭_&_ŕ_o:zt Lfn7&D=P^SȓLw%ki !„*KЦ+1+d-ZͻUo*?~n_wը*&/Y KM[b--”osT7oIv5޿ݿkC[&Vh]7zK NퟴoNHHP>P,8frdU{ݐ+P 0͘Gzݷ6=%h-)oA8,Jual&Fhn.}G>y$`߂ICGCOU%~n?kkGou[W|pL#M#YN_:uòngts]yd{oK%%r\Qˮ,`9vh;z&Ǻ:;@]Nὓٶk<}-ܱshy=> Yj=Ǘ͞V( %S u}Bcᐊyu;,]]A4=DoY~x]vt z6yɭC'':|NJ)tqy]V{wqxcLst݇n?0w_SLe:  n5XI^_J杇={ρv#{vy׮sA[vW>auJpBHQT]!(hb\> AM\ʷ@15nTB2dh砳_GJ@QfU%8o0H\r޴JrmxfR*1 '#̋/&JsKP`H<%WXK0@,oâQ*r?y۬$XG@~=h"{EFw"^J|`ٓR'2`J"l!{F@ikyC{-!ԽQ;*Z]9WH#¾Ղ.C&X4IٵFx"^fsF)៥6ZI8-O*l1ʸ yaFIklйr`92^0nXcWO7;#C$tVJ,@zl(\B?ݢǛ#xc2Kkoj[UVI^"EyKY~ꯔ)D@ӄ%d԰ήY\-Rj>e׀f J.ĪRQhOO"[dw/ {𡗒4Xp.hꭼ>C_w'D&b07MVp!VΑ [kKyw:,+Xܷ-Nڗ][^[ClYs3采lX,^M(!ہOCplp7KdVo8춐: YXZ-WxրZL5S'̦͝2l,kU_dY-Dy JI9ݷouL]G(:Q'PiєH\UTOQ}'ٸbȐS3GP" G 8ŴᱥJt!YN40۟O&*$#Ѕ̞=w}ݢ7z=z…3tڹ\!=8!wmz6U>Cta:%=QS}`O|}vǶveq]NޣwNQUQh{:kshΝ?wef>X"θڦvy~t7Rbn._\AO'RlM$0q4\;G|g#e%giٛ.%>q_[=}Gs%7уwܷ‰cl#iu?o>G}dث'(-s4[OjMYj fXݧ斟IFSTo(lS+Do+].%Z{>jfb2?AՄ/S^ 9zfBiM2b A7M<7%sK"C-fҰ<6' ae pYقhý"ĝ"[P֢_uvW<ؕ{ٷpE_d{A=$ 1YAmlr|蝻NGZУ^T bMi4MRjb=@n,;LOv;rpO=Gs.]['h+YՀ->b=5We %|@E& ٵr~_C['.]Z'E)eG,V X$<[-všO}#{C7_=syi(h2z۵k{g>|l*mfbRNMt?|nܷc@ť믤װSB""lESW>vp{M_XKxM-V28B_u; _|sa~;)bLLLcLjH=8w\b96_Ezy~׃S8CIFTH:}xdWK}s> gus촫}b9KjlJRNN8*{"%uP^P\qO"(xScoU eղ`qBam+\+E j@;].NziԷu,-Gͬgie(|\o#cwb`|'(}o/)E@70B!IoA P:Ҡ6Bt'₏j"W#3G53Lv?ȡW^ˤ>TD2V~M*NLtQ!Yh©8jm%\_tuPЪwvS)ʌP - cn.nF[O;2Kk58Rήzd8=^w 'cs8kh3~(Fz="rܨ !d\8.W- C-omIs-%K/!3M $Sd0ԁ#6TbՂe9TH4]Z6[N# [Uo#oRu vTde1̓I%fW֨a H:GXu ԟ:岕rɲPKquvhjEé"X|ǮG6/Mv/)z9ʲ<[;o]>.o/];5J*`pjfZB :=n?M(G`Txe)].d+J!َM-0h\~?Š/V%[??:6b,ef"pJ'6SP,^]ʎ}?}#{Wi`1QxMEmXՐ0ka) 4iJoCuҦMCk4??Lzlz5\u5}ܷ{B-uR>g{?C|OVgu={LӫWlVב?d?~޾#|@X:ݶu|za}};:sN۶c;vj̤$=h 忽O&H;xTN_=xdrx4Y;j78~O~o 3ϝan;uiݗfy9u*.Ugh.krdh6kzGIԄIᾉ;Oe|1\3xQ3x8If.?=Ofʝ዗31D5KmhFقYmeoooos7\f#b_#|cUpڢ.Er6js#}͚'n7/|XKK[JSrIeg[=ةA^]7~J,SzpH`5C<.~%"f jh`k>}<1l}ԹEĎ-HXYJQ>=_>5׸(lu2אSaޝIE m3aG\M'ϜGp-ǎ%z= V'o|L^cva#u|qf{[k_?_Z6$[ }# ^w+Y)Yl>O!bDl>o|p?gfJh 1|o$axm>S>{챗g3ͭ%a_~ie7CS dW|_^Noi 6 X4}1"Mn!>ӯgə2 m]5s徠.W~Q勭',&oۂ(~ݝV/wֵ $lC ڃG{?ۆ">98ғj*wtg_'X`hH˯*c[:wi T0aq-9ĂfciUրWBP"= 5D"'GzgnW4;\JIx4d&2B=W D+!*҂1+t}PWWet %%`N1@ćku !"Ө&oU)UqS$%4C[ TZfElacx=8-J ݸr ؟-[@̔7HO]93;8Dتlaܷs[<97=g…֯e5٪X`wՁ1W8߾O?~7?I$/7M?8`_~Ͼ[?|xo\[q,iU[ }z1/E +h.op{;@΃ɳ K{`2+ؔl"t t|ڊUKe._Tk9<~xh +^\ZZdʫ D9lmj-,{8"y_hKʎ`(  H;橡{{ B?rWyr-oQ Pka<~)^I 0_$xxU6oل~7Cʂܢs4~{ݷ~6&Y _ȟz /j3惕o26`BHfKWv>߼of<ؼ( :PtO<}ټ 81B\>z r 02#X1XXt@_~٧-OǛ-{ bBP?i]I|tYx, ʕuq<٣NWh&-D$j=:xbuf'@|A'_-E"hd4Sg+O~hC8=mgRfC8ZΦ>G2 bF^~ۨ~EuʈΠ8?}5?ԨK5>wE{u.^G ؆n%FCyN U_;s;@Wz_9pwvRAl.vzO-\OQ53浚?*,6V!VLMч':%ev)MK E,]zt}uowC&cN|+dDD{v#.wC4dne7d(nNn^Sbryʇ+J}lF.k^]Z^\KO^rsեRhڥصr7uG ;t,$:!)z,IlKO4Ր^*bV3޽3/3gS&Cz޻{/}pHɏ;Qr,/?k+է0 Cv!Nb))4s`r|SY)7-mmbMfGg0;ݨ!HP r1j1U2"zte=ЎbB۶hO)xƹuWyrC^nmCBT(r 4Uj#g|`=B,g~:p¥W'ޖ҇-ޙ5v,)d^H][[>?;{ٗD2[?uӺk o,#f,SZRJH<oa2OS$\J8ik$atKq_ɶL>S0z3w{$=pz4:݄3MXfה'm!}l(X01kU׮$Zv-Pm118pёHw}ϵ_Ws`POZ/kCc?2 GxDQwT0*OsC8?kۅ4}6m䀩yPW3-]˳giϛp$AeL<ůG:K(phA)c5Ef0MꋛՇo=({1/oz|̈ixقVohnB@z!qOl}l݄x4~{l,Q~ [!or $pB#sԥXޮzUsqs[H$-cаRs;vN66iڱ h6y=xea$FqMF}ni<6jEy~/g҈Z09; |`` , h  {﻽ML!ҘyT:f*G>z _yr&mqSS5[{>=P q۝>㕓gG=#jղԕfnw+;G<_贬.]mL.'~i< r!2[x<glA7p)wLZ-kWwu(\en~;-˥ʩ Uh\B|3:xS#C!/*Cs3bcMGP—O {!!PTACx])˨?pK(DޤP'4\.7L:KxՍe^5Ţ1[`bDAڨj%jCo ֑l}t[ Jq80swlWeU)$%|M%gB`Q=D)P8J) ;zn6swI'[z'\VHo޳lTuÃ!>_*$ j4!s]֪/ZS+|S2v$b<L ã2B"ED$XR(*P}]\G1*4ۘ?eV*t=<[SPέ$_>;sʚہ DZKQp8:IaĘP~0+kj9JĢ+)jCK 3{qz_[S> vp iWQr*rG\bEE}7Ցނeo^BU2뭪^1XJsk?ҫ e"#]KP7Ўczzb| 2gT1{V,g-P',$JTR}Hr龣]83W/56oHTz:Byf#Gz }޹=?by@+Pm,U}`opc\P8%oOJRR~_F;;mvB,Wl:ԯi-zBj}CAϾqʢVwKg#P3$JB֍]͚b{m'H eSlfԯ|-rSnq.p!*uiS2F,^(}xJg,F'/fPG!of .ţ^>unDB/ڲTEw{u{~U%9E:H  () 4 G=B PKݪlus4h1 f 8 .x,mP>w8%( z{n`)m4rrr1ؽ,~ J vs|(mv[L8qwL*&dzg3J;iwف5 iN( T1EVLkyU뉳 ]Bc\+|kw5TpO$93M[F"f"γFʚbDGlIkFcAYR)z kkkHn(\*Z),(^ʞr(m2bSGZi۬ NTO6~CQh%mLȾEوxVUmB9=AZM']IYUg y5xb7oˊwn|L؅+ӱ htIc{Ոmڶlw'7ᢊTADVPkWrPG6/<\+}~h]/_ͯu?1B2goXa+V z>BճIe$̵x'a#jIgy7lo{4ֻCNEs:[/}e6ѝ+H 45t2ط}{w5܆j$JhZei:iV0)HK p,~ǎuSV?/!rJ$]HZkEԇjR-Rfڊ+\_W|y'R-RiD{cE[c2Sz:(E˱|49ln}c[l۹]C76ztc}5{1[寮fCF-KU&G*z~ @;W=_pIĥdܫ5|S!HѨF=,:n8{[wѾzx5=Z4Hح.D#DЁhG5؝n?Gd1|Sm5Q3 el,Lvd=;;zhw|=S1VSvŴ3M Ovw$}8uSiX9ԍ6/1_C[6oi}t >-xǠ/-W嵿z@{2ׯO63"[hlel3j= X =tގs~/*ÕThJ@ _HQ ݙEoA6~gǟ$z $EhT|*Y-F&z+8~ "8Wjozqi=7p&;:4hBSj%.儮|߫ǯ||[;=g;TX݉)9p1=EB>ͽ}b8, YiFA"JXBC&^Xj }+{d3奈bGXFlB5E:߹r=r''^| b ektuC)&'~=kCD„m«3Qۖ,-+=Ɇb`!QئƌKkk(4H I6UͦGnUm敳[@θKzU*WqK䊛Gfmt9&΀øklthU<C͢.5ܛҖh" ݓɖ)(^7F1StGr$5-CVݻLF%"G#.7 }yL%M6䙑'RS/!z(/ 싔_ vPMo(uw͠,jck j 'e $hW_6@ީT HYGBJ@t_\H]. (<ɶvgv:[&6a+)Fv𐽅VmWOMƥ`BG*<Ȟ/3$a탏ݻ29ƾ>/ m\}A? :ۼ؃gx-_̓6PGNH{60W*SB"%JPU[G-NswvM/\x+?.>C~ogV 3J6>QUVu"+ c+R.իR&.e⺱L&2 BQ\uMaOSO:UaYWT3BM\X+6ƍ^W5wxlK.GJ 3 Y}hp#Wa0P9"/M 7bHIR L6ԗhsZBepuӝxF 6(Ck!P5X!?/TC+VXH{X]-F\]8seUl}qI?;׸zsjҙWKX҉H_^CT);0 pu`r~ DANDgvjsEL/((.9Z`d/P‰e5_VʖW Ңޔ̕g|n.=u |;B/-)o;[f3hy5ZRbXy=^'K맏_ke)^NvQ5d!LDӱx.rb5'sx'+V{qځ"(ݍ@Ʒd o%Cm7O,o3l-ߛmH76oZnMһuR](6՘L0e`*UH߅fu5+:ͺzq&ZoDn,C1F嫸s09 hVmUJoڙfip*T<4s4qVf/]exBieel4b+߾ӍKDElwgΞ-K0|^L) /rd f}Q-^<9i(+ڛG?tZ7~OMm:L2ܶZK4_YG/mZicbBٿYv(Fɵ^d 21cpL+qyݠo ]rjG[!W?v$5Gp3pя{]G'ZaVmA }ǝ ?l"9^\m_`|T@Iė,8URu*<0 d D̆Rڂ[Lh$K\(lՏMˍZeԅ.*`PBp8 Pb-z)t,8Ȉ[/vp(#1a]Ϲ[%L7ovUjՏ|Д+_zT*'AGq]k[t&H@w;dv( yD<}޲:6ƺThgx`<qZLÈ A/ P2`z:>6h㈣#)%T*~)?Ő#imUQQ'vDIe)ٿ2 ^%Mьzg_^bbڅ]fͼ+=r.yfR"ys[#Uܺ\J&uO#/&:V&ZMڹs-eD7ʝxki\խo_ d[<{M8\lF˱Hŕkh^>&vf3۷dLYXdJz[2ɖD|d262$:ܗ ABBժbv:Qr<BCJ'mI[%fM3!Ct^Kz ̭QI7 4F͔@`8"DK|eP쑡t S`%?(Gu |ҵvIx;$<ZZI) 7 ~Mp GZ"kBqnP ̤FZ"|1\*h4 O(LnV)5EY//4h!LMAgʊ x4yYR6&Ȩv$@%<@=$T੎5dĀyvtP*}BqVpQjPt б7H(@?eU\HF<+7cS(0ܝ13xdlD"^ P*)Կr..ULf3'W!j.&w’=~`#?~|cjP:,ی+?ISyy;hd"$~$_{l?>&C^3=_Hp-["A(]_`~.27J,џ?-x-[='p yyCf%'֚^_t Ss{OZWa BDH?Q߂׀c,Hb/f1T=؟z|#WmB҉{͏};o<#2L '-eo>b9/^L33a"5 o ?u o>= 'K-`.61 |(xzv;p '&'`k/:!H{ N|~?r#D&%mVB`d(A2Z@YK +7Zp|ARg6O jscNܵQrc±^v,J++cYfH#gveLՋJ6(˄>I'o\&|2jQ Gľ}{7*ٗ l#c G#b#g!&///oXXX~df۬z}c:3GN+duĝ7H4Xi_*tm"^5{\^L؂!V;[Eq{kSIiR&PRbtQMsoEMs]`DxkXʮ/or ]+7Ϯs~}5 2gf/.s@rR5<N OPѯIzԿh7ixM|ֿ^ JPl`ݯ|vKl{C&l|XoTF ͛# #+˭\m`rv~wpqnəkdy#jMo@j)u`l0@62ף2$:)ׄzֽ/@.ɥсʍёJD?|wpNRw ź[o##JE,fLCKP4F`jIS$ ý]]hDCGiHۛukϞ8={bw>虉opZ3{ŋ`D~j ]$XA@fqеQ0) `?$<OB&)[r{~uG=clFv{#ą%uԋ"o!jwpaO]0M n|, eŠEL"`ĖfMdH7]r%pI)'n.3df}fhl~2Ov+P*H*B]%,.3ѱX ;)GR," BHT2}Tko*QO<EejWƅq<@ jMj ;:$,$DM1GD |lbMz$Ku+Ś[ J2Mb NUɶ`熅 Gq?E Zv!Y)l-EC{M6v>ܪMh]#ENC& kMҼ`rec ̭:ux(^,6ck\Ak4}6^Nb`~aܳO6lBx<(&. #($\ !|Z[2)֣I]7 }F49W1 aKx&NC;F:if3yrDEAH!# wVj8M H\@+n8h\#r# !ꆌ3b1'12< k\b$KDDq]^?LY:hc=(HFB+EMow*Wf $ZX``2,$/'lܪm!Ⱦ%ڢcD˱TJ9jRK*Aw6{~v| h ?h|?Y-t^;Vw _|ՈW!9}_ b[E(NK~;oꠐs 01 hi-Mt}qf֝'m%ФJ3 #ַ"d&HM-[0 &T~sؐ|[RQrXE-!(+{,ꚙx͕, d %`y+n~k #OJ2tʟ93:]jNݻwrz]h y慳9uZw ԘʮtI#2S7xh` &?b+Z2+dg?w]]\'H3\"䈱gJFhzhŇ>~fj"Nɜ:0Ȥ>8<\6޾L.CL,~z:|T*AA<ܗ823vo=FC7) ɀe8/q@{oՍ7c_H=wӿqz6kSӌ?ڇZTlR(WV]vx|:5+q\ϕ654HFƠ˖_'E5]QѺJW@Lpq "R@i䬬sz<6Nrf(=3? ~G /7_dF.o9R\,nvkpH뭍NZd̽w7IO^]ʯýx</J8$-j^N;4ٞ٩LD֝dMKjѳāY_,rh  d: baIFw5lTɋ@f]b:݄-QnyA@O JbIBz]atdW/r|ggck4qM \,tkbqZoLcgGƭUJ%]R[f:39["Hj6S烈 ^)ucҳfT^h1jcTg_;aaTFfJW?NT-c>"9.&iKwkJmcGcz+F%Lz[*5`pA﷌)Y$nbj30S'L.Vd#K]73bB%@@?WUH DwXM{ƦD2H`9}rr )A"tF+@h)(FqbWEu i^ngUbG=G}İ(՟Zbt6CvVΎ=5hH_Qhvpdrwiu A2}ˍ)w=/ ް)^ -_-b(Í+F@J1zS5˝[b Mɡ8lFŽSzkld/E([ipRT%, H6A (" R)xƁ)RωJ&FWb^qS1>GО~שͦ2g/Iqg3L}f9OSg7Wj/>r}X KkM%MڸSDC@=ӘMҬ䁊OPE Z `L4ʼn0" N9J&ǧڳ'H0uޓQPqGD0i`:N5ZfWkԙH.dxB4,t&a"DMc-S@xȰ@2H.4K2zDtFtKqkNBՆ'P~dlSQ(JE=ephlY*U |$gLbEDFHۄD= VhļLgW^BL'ҘJvnOe5BmG @_uI޾Iwl}n7kߵvu;d&ȰB}<?Q9O95쉧[yYF  Le7Z A=x=R[) ظӊ;+auJ0bs=?yC5n%I3lwk+}P; (W3Wv1#K܌&)HyNn=6n5s^493#h+{J/92$֞8 i`^1QeLo1+ǝ0>] J4 CkvQ;)s}Fk`E(A,vI4sh#Tm.yKvΑHG3v0~Dmp;HZ7A^*C=jjg#2U eLHt`yʈduʿw_[{1Bwbp_cZBƈ YjIZGepֽ|sXQEGhq9EˆM367d;r6ii&0uVˉX8pd6 t|+^{ޙqrV*Ib>J$Bj yY!ܭ"O=cy^o>{ߙ~`8YnNgni=Nxp4ŭ—t!WzJ$L/à|WzYhQÀQkfkRO= hW>Z[o Rzv_w$d)FXɍK]frJNZi=;n~ 1ŧ*ʙ'OO+uUs=?Փϭ!ƍ3Y69p*Ɨ6[o}?w?1^<:1 LNL/.#P%fWvqUkC79$P,gsy\067琘,}fƒ FYo%ͳ!9(o_xsaqdlZOիՍգ3$oB1ğ~UZûN5j/zJ$tm"Nf*FC2LI /ETK۹lѭ-RYJ7ׁ!ߠیG.._IBڨw0jEs>b3Tl&dҩJ*$L 5t v" Ы ӓtr81>kE;#I8Hښef'k»Ď f҉(t5 hfwx(b&xʚ? ad8jYQLar87$( ;Ho;=t/˷Mj]@cG6--[673ƿdrHw*FV!۞א)j@b#\nك[a_IJI2"UoёD)Smi@kVl+KZ9acfD@oD@_RW_BzH 0HV!zQ2eQ=0XD{4j4PonuXxF30zHk:E(.!lo;)V1 ί=Vn08 4Y<бY4;t)y,*sfE iI5$% CM&[8]IVE$.Jj :MvmГwJe&]j>б;n]88.?m᎓}߂3wv!:`o ]'ka&y`ܾ{_/___7Y' jud2y|M[mp]l߰X >3N?_7ѿy/ڍ-W\9F0#vug6uul^!%N-L%Ba ki_ ۭX%[IIPO| z5Pse*gw.cG%Z,b+,Hdw ̹H#~ _>s_:16V)F dTk5Ѿ.30PMrjb>K*dދ)S\+>zsq~jR}JTA_h,1umZcg<7qV/ـhVmVGy^Oz\/|X;2 +hiR}$0u$bU`JJ40'Rt70`@o^!@*݅z7 Jo_]\^`+x3###f$WHC⣖oYLX)W2ec++*,Q|0啕 z9Q s3:ˡ-س<10 . 1*Z^~K+=5udb$[ ? 횧]ozPcz6̶pFq+ame!ۣۻo^=H <}wD?Y8w(z ~n+g,,҃.&/F?_ƿ z7&[D8.׊^-FZw"q0FN HFPt1pݘ7'Wa?__?_s5D "՘%0cؐdʒ;YD7Q~{ꈛ gu* qo~][KkU rBQSG8~mTsc+\F :(>jZ7-m^U*;s n {ðQ . 7:~k7 _'gbLKR:m]b["M(*)7Vn߾Hlw}FC:d4BݦD8jvڕV-]Uf>-"X"QIQ@,yBA$Rͫ`a]‡J :.EK[W%jV}$`~hJ[."_}Z+ET5u'S骂OL-ǒ׻~ZDu{>,xכap?5CV5\H=q ʦVgGT"pv}:u--oN2p"fJX0VPRA,2zL;aMvEؗ쪔U<׺Tv%QR3MWTL[EJϼ2Ś(3lMUqU]xD]VU# Xk2H:(wRV;?2AFm#\vGU[=wMƏ> w;|gk m(lb1SHmXoɌ- :N.UGWRţA' Rnla`61'BnVo{8 DEfbT(z=wՋ5:,uM-/v5(*9#)yM!Pð곕*y*}e:$}M|j p_~s&FuI_ *?+W?u]bwުΣ$*9~C5`՟чݷo#=Cz(~o4JpBi==!%撟ݡp{t$CjZ'мV7s}8 Cb`HD"`̲G[Ff+/ܽ !5QΜ>AwR_WW+ccJUs7.GхZBWWcd1ί. ZTj4gHS%'$B6ᚒ)!"[:*V"X8FӪ|*[0XtkYD`塤QI0q<~ז{ .F>0MCW6;y,\/64wjz<b" >:GH엒Wm CYDZmPèQmV(D("z8EI'mE"=@L6ݙ=Ƨ0eb槉j6 n=/@!% GZkE*mǙli{:x>YhԵ|!xŋf0224;0nSuѺ_Z"ǰ%bUiuu׻JKVtvR+{o"`4=drՍ_y0 Wt$}'ZҳUKEzfvn+}qGrjǶ>c3u ^\;V:EC+d[R[զ8~s_wM]7g8mf'/dƷL8#i -q.ے|I%H^LKL8N[m6@Z56V壾-CS.gCIr[t9)X e Ю7h.I( _GKtbp#W.feDN cɡ4ׯ\*φ3XFY,B^g|&$)(kcj_80"Z mnA~5(**)sJh3n_8xpp6hWmVևmwI:k)vImwS^Vxc'7$)(XDrB0 ')v<6g-5o!w0^z5Gpl)Tfzykv7Wi5:ඳ::M {$F q[c poNmoa[5tY%r{{ΠGAE$ 6Ên`W KHҤmfk%][`NmGox':rsKm?Yi:[Z@J TIY#E ZW6ڤ88j? 4d;=6 AA(aF*V}2(&"NL xnz[Ԧ Vc zDgj,XBh e"oA6BgjAΐ8r@Z*dKfU7'&Av15#:x/,V~6:@H}< Yc |HD;2Ηt?P^)KQo4_?~cu+G5 .Hꁕg=uh.i{mp屚2^%|ً7oPČH v!OBέH&tr(k/ϑ(-υhm[] ^ج(>K58H4AET%Ww^VZT=t·|Z[۾x|6 ];W>iR6VͿ]y3˗ec_)j Iyf)jM?}to?~~K?5Wdځh0݇~# 2"6}_?Rt??dd (XL:$5\W1[%X2BHg(&4j3zLA {mo/JJ:k4r $uOewŋR`k7}WQ\R[iTcG'Nhg3'VCh5{7p>pN!p;3K@ rJ0P[m]`vxTnaacrzu|/nj^ڊc :@ډc1zw 䍈o_wm7Qp>_k*Dy"~jocq—\P֣:uz12S9u moB̌1U0As`Z_ZHkS77Cѡ7 zg!A X:qJYXjK R2>)UOjkbWmFȖh_ހ\̈́j].?r*8TSy5a{淂q́I]#3*!cDo%JD.[ WvVٺn; y&cHi*wJ(!\M@\HC (ka ~bQ4P(*wМ~ wЁ$FI 5TV"I*C,uY FA4vWI `"l \1n9B@#ࣻV5˝9P *΍CʌPɌqZ%03 =0If XPA&JTaq?oQ#j+p5\?`q򕟺_:Oܫ#N/g/,oT3ŸDljcc_SgN^{q̍_{fV/_nGC,w?XSϬn` )"5A%jm w7yr/ǿ]Y&}u Hi";zx"n :Q&<[0n)W#EL"R {֨3'> PdiÇ/_L1=O oDCo2DD#ZJ'Ɂi'n@JX4IBC! A5 4%C13H5Az,0 %/,Ҟo^,{(Oܝ]_|WѓgoR뵋-Qғ J)׉DC Wp6^L`5td[SX?,سg{N^OAz%r[I (8jJ"Z#sؔ(#XhV tH דLB![\7o{> X6ů?ܽl<2 H7:h4kN]rZgM-wIޖyRf]ۥzyivG.J98ab;.cjQ~D~%;ȕv[Uned:(RGYS: s uIKLT.TtKYGB8@P .vLe@;ԋʕq2VҖ3ht^8БwQ#kgQODW ח/mCZ;HoaegmҮ%/Kc~3Potq_NO̿+Y}WFoɆ]3gwfBHYԡqlaw\l=ص$k/ 6K^{o] 60 A;Yj^_X ~wvȮo{qClZ Sz{lh~d/(-窽_o'r0ɠ|ƛ:$8elG$ʖ/' D.xQ!,FqU/DdeX߫淗.O,=u7 `( D-'nt@@݋ifv{ Ablr_pKnL$-)𴰸 e‘t.15U^##c` e BM¸^RPFCNH&k%=21] \ SF cik? i/k!V[yzTPm2G{7Cǃ>*o~#QBvV+Ue/DF ˛25m [b űF!.^PUh5D:3`$Tkk,/œ&q0 ~_fG7MW̛T:8g…5*c{ctS% UNhS= 6rAblVtW<"4 yȔ@r$ +"A\nO\waD:;Asd:txSZw\9 w[)_܁˗Ӏԑp:CTDQgbr7^EjD 򚜜dihAV?_KBDo{jk_w_<vdZ33:-kS s>ݷ"5vM'(LA|.Foixe[?Wm՟ :Y\k#PNwKOds>qءqwT)fz>RpU1([*ӧ=էcFpM!rƼOJc, =ܱ vl ͈+R_y-q,1qH\׉-)%0 rj>bC[5I?ڋUQXUNJC+@Lvr[&ۂBF8pA8Ti!ٓwxcVzWמ⼂GNZ‰TRqpF'Py( ?V,Vx6r(ɽ&@!<_}lB8!X:hhԉYK?%nSO͝ 2 B*(6҂Gi%X$|fyY*hJX*eqtMO8E8ɫ ,B-#<<tԼM? d|%$N}&+d#H(tpTb'슂 7bQ/|B4w,1XJܻDÐ P"bZ*)CMR׋ 8Rw xZ 5G)hݡ,@qDZVTnE YS⸈Rˮn䜚(I܁no9X(on1nwzFqKdy&p}$[L&cCHAFgH$o jƊ̕ uk׮G"6!IB~DAZ_4D{&BuY(- L"*q;$w|G?h7z?ǿf][88;Ś?\HŅǀ'eW4jTtIa9|CY]J3@:zYhEEk._ta#q<2Q"Z,+leǨjrPwZ]٢|27{W2CPEGo.PYĩKHiU0/cF/M-y@L|T.3}GϨd_.N߂$or[AurZ(V-JV/SN%0{C#$"z^c?]6J#ڱœ/_Xy ??.Rȱ?Fv?𗖞v]inYTӣt;(hEm^VD rd̑cQ`+7q J@Ip)>o7iiju`IP Ͱ C5[<+~l *`N%XwOm(6;J=OFK3>xJҁ+U?I.lq0L%/l& uH7J,AO*8!X = F)6^2_ $E;6M]1]Wy{5$yI=Hcc0̯r*I.D{+ DcH*TiZ{͊ KM=oWI%,FR$Z R (L}箠]vBL` S cA?BeFk08wֶ%%4lOu b+%  rEUWAwA!9eBV% ~e쌒"sf&B%^0%҄ hD>Y&]BR cRm(W'}Éu4Un1V'ߥء۝ɲj:\z[9!^tVr+M`j;n8[1@#>Zoqf0Io7%E+}XGkPynaX` @7 gF۔*hbR9F@1JMPpxC'U,6 (+Bg(!bJo+^t4C{j/>L*Pix@FrǨk-?<qzU[1^2Gwx\kIo߆\Qd@⫯ g4%JHPTϐ]ؼI6Zz>0&BrR~< `FH^Թw43,Ұnrﭳ+e@TlzgLVn]O[:%Oܘx%17%!,#P8Tc\ :F /@ydGO@.jGND O#Yxi4li=3<õ+#FL buhJ2_*&x \!;' Sz.Mv+DppGpRK>bXWa H! %/<ӃwtL!x "NÖz6;⦈nUk,HjSJ֫^3N()8"v+RPAKu17icMBA@Dt F^D;/ R$jq0FQ*2\  x[ÙQД;1B"Z̵T<2 P|}?b &9ijiT$bWt6ЦLH㲡G8S/a8&F'"`WA}'Wn\W^}eusuav*6^Y.:&BJT2x>J u[- / ϊ͉G%5t&6ؐ CVp]#E7<4ȕ#+Wok!!Eb{{6O#7 T,tMaD߱ щ I9]$p@BY/כ8XCch\kTu?y¾=rT("I2s33w(bB|X ėr#z6Y,INcd8a~?a 馒\0>>pE⚨r e=p `b|<_w`}}dufP+ ='a`- C(Z&gQw"ȄrE_RqP/,YGhU T~I0uV*; ~p8mϲLn[&[V1KHݳMinU$V!I2?$% /z 0ToklEhV/D9].T;Z;N^xt;dWAi6#$JvF},a0TIVADc1Hh5Xprը}^SĿT<>yWVIK=|ĦF2مkX8bV?ڻ76KƁHljH7@G6'[urX8BaЄXU`:8y}+44Rⓟη^*4woUZD4v%R% 7CaO C9wiީ{01H$Kl?/7]"nvl|kQ^n"`uY<} 2hY&wE{^ %&x(k>{YwE}wRz5O卶1y7n>[Ѷ|7=smo_ܹF{Tn@O$Ǜ7m<$"~̀/S톃=8}lj80@Aȸb}6aW'y6[vOit!B8 US 2n2Xk% u̥7)PL+1/J!FUa.x9ժ7_)B@DJocą5rZ|춛hx#`"ۉw#Cbnb5DZBEdA~cl^0B(*V|p)G 4`ԹD( %ڡU50n#xf(^naBhP`N,߸$}d:"ƆV-ldqu`6v=Du8 bćQɗAא* u!? F6Ēh䎶H9a&(x61R=6 ez"XZǒC.,.Ш6WLd0Pbc/l}'Y_ eNznzz K1x q7q qF9`g"O.-wmms1cS#QW–K-mDκ&%jk76^"-4DžS O:?9IQ|r .ASWjJi{Tn:8s ˬ BqZuj )9OJR#A2 x@GFƯX&BJ|VMƓэJ)On26>ؗJ)SHaֈl P# I1(dDK%FsJ'}qKu QqzF)W^]F:2Ӄ"[D94,Ȯf0d(H|HP%[UO(4pnRkHV6ʆG{g|t<*Fz_ [[kG[82Aw'z'}.tYbM` \6IT`Wz«/ސM0}EvSMp5BPb3EPg}˂>Wy2oC׼Yc=_UЕ}QuF}'F`Y y!uX lCſ@&4Y H}cO4a715.h$@ 2y=Bor##v[2 4']-#iL%eM9f$B/U~*ae+swZ7)1515P"J#Gf,/RԖr1nooLMAot]D4Up{>I49@b"OW+#X[. Ա_!`\V& 0&0б9: TUҊ'}l5JlO%6>\YoK]q_fɡ瞉Re7\@RPPDʮXoBVJ6ϝv pO qJ=k*jի泟u}ء3yn:z^]?|A -d+aRJ'u5˝7Ivzl-_{`Df;OIw"=eO®Άc!@,Cp2|b %,#Ҭ5Ai zJAon)lRJ@=6"ꕛs{fHH|R` C[u$Ҿ!L  W,B8iFV8xybO%} .X(WH'9;2 2w!8`xWgwX 1,MR/܍$6xYJ 1$pz')A y\Um &W.`P^.\D CSS+ 3+S.O9/ag I "Z.v| $뛠2q2)oaEe@#Xm 8?oIkx~1kK kJwꖊ_vёHpQcvb u &%Qq D$"NP<$"\e$pqL\8ЉH_J-;8:-oWU5o{lM+c;H0i=mLп鎶0q諃O2XGYCF!vpRmTݽys[U}{+GSo\LkD杏7q(s{Sy1Q_'^ݘMag>d@ OGT[ÀJ5$um d_j;R?uA^([1o ëwuUx7NЏOh3ȗF՜SN[ئTK=Okɨ_&0᧿ysM[?BD"Wi,Mgy* _|NM0jDҋ.u#3!%*ɖ n #4%L*8BDl#8*vęA+lLfVm\O)pQuk7mJ)]L΍[Fm &'FG3_|eZR0UayRh6KXH*"hQN_XҤ"k$';{}y@?j(V"Nf1? 7,>"b{EO8\)nm/緳fOml5\B%$lss^]G׳+R 4$d _pXݷ^2jTqfg'L.k{pid;=eg[̓Yybxd*::z򌊼v*MA/sjq9oj)O1&)35#p݌3 &KɏVLr+S]uBeÒ Cvbm>T{9c(Z0sg_4@ uE]$}MQ}gN͓~Y=h% ۈ,*dh3:FBD#C29#YrDV{GYt^ϺM2-`ogKd9ߢ-4 w %ѣn4\ "=V2N)t\vljXTox*43F[mḷ )r=~]T׶"ؕ,,K7 W%B /[JT8s3{[>#q4bՋUV|o=Qb9fTrCQLVzeS;`qg* Yr@ Ll.}B j U}];KƤjHddhhyy ])"Cd&Iڷu2)fL՚u4+B{v(`(QTJ$_+ 1E1n!@!bo4## 8㣹[ɖ㝞?DL D'2rBzfLZ_15;G7{b,35 u|q(SpH ]lCZE@4*bص# >Ij\b>:]Kbe}=?}F{bb˩d=Oܝ/n,0Ms3%0$oըI ZME[uN:ÀYf633/37M9gXBwd;6:*ƍ`[CRx6YDAEnF +aixh`9ҀQ T~GZr-e(hs>_Ζa[[c#t:2RNӘnb`8 awp="Dmi w3)8F'fPITO2#[~ {@Qy !JV\웟tb6()ˤ6sxYC&͉N"Ѹ: ZRtY_hB s"Ll,jhL=v/J7Y^݈G#UfRc2#G#`Et8BS㺓 NP[ C5jpGլ<Fߖa$IrXRes#Ue2z1;&DaB32YƊeYuwMkJ䌑YWGo6UtMBٻIys0ܐHEtNO<ױÐ84(ZtkVm^ .'[GCuDGpVœ3RA׍#Ť R|99=p[]\f.s5YkeHFwrWeRP384LkǡlJ+Zè:RYSPj1U_ѽƊYQ~ċCZd#ZČqRuIx dMJ*hȰZٙ8{K g@+jewqiuR4Ft`$f*,6iWlg Βjʃ}Ů1ʭ#E~W_&FININ{Vwh>X /9utБ3[ H"Q&;mR`|C]dH(hl!\'Ol( j ƪxLzf>$X|w°u291A;gA_wff=D0R;K2 `'4CmgsG:G 0Fo~Qk욞("jO}xB akX A{iGPEW5*7HخdZʕK @" gLMM+r%8v,5lV)`X&T!Q n1OC %o`IH='["ɘi9&هP.x=H{훟KĒ_8VH s2ób=-mo q\.CW,q 0q"a,(&(RZ3^ NChSİ-ƇMML;]XZGT.MºpR;j ;* qA'2JV6o#pZc{ו[nF%rGǬgH7*;p73b}JhwJdS"ʵ`i9 l`#~Eֻ%/+ ĸFjO'ުDU&HH8A{}h 2tVY8;uVpZf(G5ҭw+}tPtq wnab0n1׈g.:* w5ɣW4nlf]0Gλ#:29\UNϫ1`t g*VU1e8c0铢V[yQ"ڙb$~[__a APCnI 4 v+%l E ""H]][ZYYȁIb01>jՉX]Yfd dssӮۻu ?J'gg秱pOOM+K|Bx(.)Ⱥ06g;vy!6B,}DCv P)"̤s{G2"$VS<ݗ/z`;5x+\yF#doo/D"!2hie M ] ^* Yr]'59P,ܸqeii|J Q{rnxhNEr6t#ݤ]F]IyeH4+BPzLB'r9a{%*mmV7J7ml.f+Xwס)E\9QO=q Zd_~i9(RHtWB(qxAdYYcggKc`/@JE %yu*sssUF2wե4:qjkc(UZ-7"qh8c' P GѼAHr iֹ\:y rZxH8p`o0"ThRsE:J2ޤI;IV2 rOїX?!(`=o>usz閟 H wկd$yLd‚d<D`ahdc-HWg GrZTE|9thn|" sfme3se`\\\ <6`_<噝&8aȾL8(GHu;$Z"ͲF*^8Vh ׮^]]Y OJ::@ N27;z]]z./]:\^?~xܞ=S1ԫ%Pn"$sת<vK6JȢc)Z^1ѲeV_8Ie/~V' =\ *֫G{]r D='ڰO@EA=S'䳻Zefn\IjHLh{򹰋C V=sVuu~WrIG\| O4D4SlE7D0}6{$oy>c#w $9sA8d]]]顕%QTF:77syt":2J&"zyks?ruBlƚ'u"a,V% Τ ׄzdWVAMԚ-G+^[_]f5r'b8@u}Ç۫BuƒG4 %L%T$ݠdAv_CUFbaLp, j^f677IAEr!wd(@r D<J[8=| Ȑ 0l ʄ0"c"; @_?:MWʄϊ$'Uۧ%L7獜gLѽe̾ffJG<ub>0.WjFЕ w.&gNРr6֫z8?ƫ6@猛 DLgD[4ݷLI Gm5 ^ƎK-_Ƥ%ͦNMKwXkӔls4I;5\ʾΑ7tfkbL6 0}A$E:^S9)T)N*_po̸I7EѡPCE%N|'w:e~.iEqpN;r3 6 chF©V'%TLly>F1fK^O׷5Axb6F^s[g.A?'泪øO?E/9>Fv#KPެKDy#> ՌRڵK8ߓuHYMi:pS,>KXhY 4Xbۯwӗ= wq:)Hsr}<8v|PH:},wkMQ҈/a]m0Fo*F9ҠʺDg~p glc*y/t^ {\vt;ئhڧjC +w֧s^0sO6bD9#lǂ/eZo#D%bz:rȥT*Aory1;7F{_t5(A/9AZK)7鑱kȆsyXB5pJR>2C@dx,Z1HCX΢#ebcy奡cOs/|=v.^"y^p>8{p4 M KVe `e%:0~vDI|8f \vYNĉcөb&wZ5K_mUR_t߁z ;)Sch"RZmRP֬y+_.\{w?Rm|d֫KOqONϼrvdf,9+'T%Vϛ^\2s]P gN*+Fm;GlaO%?#h,LѴ{gg\;rfv^ $ΝDiIUOPӮ/Gu Ӵ@Sbqa2=j+'NX]AYHdV,C5qOWi`'6ݻ V^c֖BG.~G-,uZ;2h0.Vtg jBօ,dq[J!fɞb{d/xݏuhc.bTR4CĮkigWe7;HvAAۊc`tc{_}:b$R;r9sGP =B-›I;3E9c>yќE^~>FvG46zAnO~A?-YC9̌Hz!Vc ZDlO$\?ǘQjTq\c LGN 8T7RNYBbɖ="XԬI16|9O{6($@ STUTO"DJ;Oybh2d3A:Lo1pk;\3WhCx};_Ki" Ë;7[Xb X1 YЏT&)hzRh2:jsB#@:Q+Zb^.v5by8%WQ1z!q ^yk&C7q^)OgLh˒Hqc2; dia$t{0$`M5'mJՉ)B,R}vrCqziѐM* O@t,^`͚RF;̤P̈́-77hHQp\%1fL/.4ݣGG/0|~4bLB3X) 9>ū5(>h588Ā"˶}]kK&(ٙ\ ꎑzj Dy_{ۛvMk- zR3 ^\q=(Τ)H̼Sə8n|7/]ԨJ+TZZxזmmNtJ%bY]As|$G P֋)K`'%V&KK [ŕWVy[ޑʵՋEO_*G} fsskk+NSúDA$7{#J5KlDtĹZBt>򯽞=#7]?e2 ,ׯ_&bx8ءQ\H u'1T%v&7 o.crD񆕠XRu$jn}au奵eRyt:PlMhbҥNP[Tn1;L\moF{,­_h^a魺bQprݏ,cqNb6n34FdZ9&&P"b j#!2,<"Aٔhj,FQ`!QU¤^ N*M$CXJj!b (2g<&=5>_QW4PFN+lƞ혱[Յc 7\XmB] Im2QjLh:rCEoKMڌJlRx#M P) n_ycmFJJX/IMt2Gy@X7 ~OX$ L&sc믿| uݞ[oWWOi\8op=)Ńq_~&=IUI{sSz" D|7h>K!a\wiۣ>,Owzj>|w2ni=K`''0UӋ+/_ON r^Ć''> v+n?+GzXwV0Y~GGSk/F'H <^®/|lTbjqo&GigՈv2Ȑ K/CאNn0*^Ń=pbh8 uC%> Z #ݮ>eTiVB~BY_.3%:?̋'?h8 ^o< ?GZ&%O)Jy!|?19C6|&1HdroK"ȸb=߿;s_GE^y@< mIBط{ݟyH"Ukh=}F s(}4'ϜG ubqҥw8O?'xb1[e@*?r &y&_)kKK7nñѩ^}l*9zw`R-kV ?,J`#ݗ$)? TC/<'?X4"rI穧:k,/ތ};轕_6=zóhPnJ˟|ba'{xWl$M#٧"~9OJ!x~rl7y{9q` HDnn0JW_?N&pЫpxaVK:Iɿo~6Eh>3ȧxH *`Kܾ3Ȥ_<|IJ)W_}H //_|9id&\Yϓkmm`Ӝ9Df d̊'r/3b{cnPמy@Ad'Uo}$!g=%W*? ) ~+_eڮ\ k|ox=+ow\z/ſNuC_[=Yq:I[K/Bg fs9ts#Hj|2wԧ> V$W^~>y:dZ&={b|= ]KYk.7OOXa[!Y=ϓ~/=IY'pw狟~,DHr_y#p}38.^o_zѨ<'}䓜G8"PTD}衇^8Mvm~VKst9f7y]٤8G^o? ;Ӈ)xCdzx^menUzslg"}c򍭑ŏ.K9@Z_*=HzR9vKW ؠD͈lf1Dl}uyd8y>|БyN{&תUOFpp"F;422y_padau!"5_(Tmwlᓔfm4ϯA9XB=0#^b!}s5,(aRnW|of;s^[Z10]ȉxP(aV% uIe,ib#h`#n^UcaIRpE3G"a&߲lEHm04.06EAAq0Ϧ]y R4Mp9{+Tseo9V8xh ҰbI ϵV'/ H/SkҔ%h3ԊJ񦹿DNK|pl8IΡH *ץhD3V`FQ*B1*s2ϑPR7@Rlcqn &-v)x !DcBDD )6PX 3w a蠩p %p1>("L| p|q GkK"QJQƟ05u3,^b {D~6ESznLI yq͍yz$cJ5Su1ȼ%0/՚Y^hh)lhR xL:p$'8HO.|,)SL.ؚ(:?[C&K'AZ< #j0I(V/0+54m% Rd6h@ zOY]9Lİ6@LDBh Ti`y.ժUh&Ɠ6Ʀfkx:W۟/a>zf`aFxl|想JkOY!g$`ȦvEI?.6:00W2PAl)OMІQ*- uvq-;2zi%`4m?'~%5?9D)̥M.o&eo|K, SF#N9 SUg`$$r"!B4Uwo.l21:|!GO:o$b oofKGQY"y}cuT:Nffubo GR-IH"͗;mVVmbI13?VZ& LnKH٩B" zCRGfMY!/!7LA8C %! }rx7eF'hZ?xh+04I eJ8;p` xС{bbMN!ˍC*SPmPa_% qRힷR@urҀY03{&]Eks}3xBB*^O84Pj;99>3=D_[oу.FDHPLSxÉ`4NjU9Eф'*y:Qu1ըtK$v5Xl:h,ن:d7R3L --Fc?Jp0&0qo A܄b1"ܐo#x aB29,(dxu`mg5{#[}ق=Ilbƹ铡zH0Wp-!blf6'ÑX\,W`2 /fQIj) oCel26wZ G`HiZkɾɽt: Xu07cdґظO-H:-WطR+U.<y HaèLF o0Xe_v$D;dpTf8CKLay\0LaeyV0 1a> \݄IdL;)+|) d5x<JRP7`xɡ@#!2 !̓H QX9ɪqF)" I@B4۝faW0SU˦d|2b"0^! 2; c a"bI# 'pj*8[~2Csu5LY|Ip(HUhjK!l(5Rj=:e=6eSf䤩( f#&O.&9@Gd3>DL̽j@e"9f"FFc!Y+Ӎ#H<4Ҥx"33ݑ:h *K _;KH-G2<o MDAbo`}m qѳ:'>8X0; !HPJRPtS.amA1QP6(ĹL;i& mC41dLO4 Wl2^)ʩr Fa,x.#ܜfl\p|d LuANږnt~I' vr+`_^zggw:d J7=+NeCpA0P8͵Q:$ۏlQmV4EHO..A1 # S*\#wilRR6f=KY},|naFaHP6T@%FwL&##cF^%es/enKn0ddvV܎20,7c%cR-+J20?\q%3C,II̐:1)Q]})k(^[]g\v#_,=FJ3 xͰrbGCFW0 ]f~Ecm8K&Mw8oT&6IRRy3l L!=mbg9!P#*&+l3]S1V =7ɇp~}쇗M&Czp7n'\X@@!n`Q<2Il;RmBX(`Ki`\1V2{07e]#AD)bF&v~>a]J3܂2fPLfL΃ >΂΁04Ƅ/GFB@lpb$20|TlCtAv96If ky郑F:VŸx\DǠMƺ+ؑ0 Q9تDDgͬ&eƋ:$(1Zy@k(%i.d%h.9?y—qb,#hf`θ4%IgB4j*8 +|glBA ST+Fi'M`_ FaP{7s*?`@06ƣeEID 1{*l>%E…e^̨J覡LuFi`E#!*ik⍒.m|HjO bra{, :A ?/C;G8rt?< jOy1Ǿ}sͺڕm`>@gcg*|1H`:W'4BA EڐlLjaյޑ>*=D"ߦF^6ş&R30T *㶳>k?\>Ʌ۝Q[窢1ϳw!wX(|~nH+AEi5qD Y!MI4%qybrxia>@( vs(l'parBēcZ=[78MMv 9\?l>__Լl*_ՐSs?Y=;ޝ踂PvyeƂ/*,2RFnuAE^!Z|n0󎱣sw(k 0ZPeU< oFI)vrIJ<J}PI?[(p+q#K z deaICHֿN<1 MNcpx'.bćD6*6+3_h P@Ě a dBL`sG +vbXo#쇸bD_]%sBp7ҝ ec˹ xb)5"C޷t<#0Xk-^'_M]R8$;S~Cj+.Egh@+e~__*m3EQhm3t?qϺ4nGd]L9'FHZ"[%xH}'/Q3S[rLݙX_]?sm;/`X 5A6eS 21J0ƴh睊aȫ'սgұfcÿs$o/-/o\56r=N/re[=X{wqV5iM$9r#?h D$ &IM(2;gװW;*THiPW_~x֧N//,~X} $ c?pVcG´S1eqj9r?;>CJe壑_uxAMܞ|nK*|&o|ZW5-dNy#wVɐ&}iN1A=MnMAQ(-D٬aT)HI6,]CC?|y{ltvf=6׬_(n_=?=&uN=yDx].'gAk( 7zH{^)qHo4J25?(2Xhwi73Y|P$f|s;=ALayr?coxNqcӈV+e;\ՂŨ=/v|<-RdVJ+na',"ü- iR9joI G-^8VbmK@:s-B&e*)6gAz 4m#Ow$v$'NhnJ NI#FĹ #KAGV-kbc}IQ(Ls :=cz } jnXGUgƕ,Hz;|[׼Mm bD-]#5pD;{,xzx8 J&(p֒4̋q/I;v UfМi@+ݠ;;- jqZΚ6p j<(dd#ˁIg%[ן4o䤃"E6ژ&0 E7|4b;y|'Wc.Ce-+qrqATHpr nw.TuR\@ͽx"Sslŋcp]# Pر)ަ%Μh4'XDCi-{PP d>C\DucòDM3fuJRY󀊜/hOu.]$&|,\9%3J IKQK^rzAj4UsHiAZ:8sS׺v}^^ԋ" FҭQVXV67 >zV_S:>G{{kOM">Ĵ.LJ[﮻XL+Alf<zR}NVRT ߃ЀBNqR5] sC_=&櫯_|G IGձS- W$g֣`E+nAD$).LOW,oWW)HmnOAt\3ۿQ&P"  {R](kdo`rӤ[8$-IQPYde] d_ʍŕɱo^|KL{Sgml6w٩C\ _>lrdp}$#q= T\h_CE}<vZ=)ѷ1][˅U\hb;<^n&ť.$TS9rVKcqnVN1*CyJC>ې؛yk.f!w5R :0O%p{5/ZE E܎??Hрٮj1ԈM+2͋Tx hAM ;H[+ԺhOBj9q-О3NJ?Q"@yS!,Rb"0_ x}Wbg~B"ᨳwtϱzTI!&/L@kQF:q7cB43HnPt^ [2%ܝ@v|x,ӷ*,c+,~NgoRFA)G0/ůֱK`̛ d9k8 N3c`HqyCn``Jx8 gتxx͇cN 2~zs C TlϪ1Eg =C񇰣c]#/?Ϛ3'"ȾخsY8#"l`U?l60x$ d՘C64$g Rhfzp0Ѯb>H9ҔgB4ꈀ>() wx3tB"l. e` .US.$2İ#R-ܝ0ϤdGvrO(TN5>ߞ618Z|??m'ϟ?{1s3'f{le|sB+oB&D뼌9;-[I}TB]}"Hm}cGX+mGGޮUkyJ1=nkPѤn LIUFYi.&۔#lﮯ/NNVNY׫7(흟/о?}m`{ïl!Tf`-5Cma:8p '_gjĥ~ڠ`zL鴴ټl-WJ?~+˖.(G7c/.n*݆T`h$H1Շ !|&qRa]sdbtZkZra)*n@ ;֜`b7u>HrSڽi`87 fpW!AvEQU ix!BL~(1U^4ϐ,^cz)/V;+Q}٨(C;3{||xp~vf[Z[?>m6)b)YW}v'ħW2Q4w-k^VS?y)UfoF~3ٕNԇw[[pW$ME?x}DR QSQth"KY8 } -u8hL ͅ oZh$UKή\M.MpNۛLD?P<üȤzOk<f$VDW">!I71yԑ֑FR lꛖ 1pd[] 2y|,~_ rQuTIo4dDž5 ti771W,Vb-8(j&I6ݦDЏzvXڡCHEӽAvy%b^RQ7A|oEF]PM z14:{ď:Ph+ݣW+LXg]9ZGԘ" MA-挥G!pSd? 4z+6a!of'N(*E/j?Hd,כIENDB`F;IVX*\JFIFxxC    #%$""!&+7/&)4)!"0A149;>>>%.DIC;C  ;("(;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;" }!1AQa"q2#BR$3br %&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz w!1AQaq"2B #3Rbr $4%&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz ?(bdcޘ E-J)qE0SF((aE.)1LAE.( \QLQv)vqf(?ms@ vL`RN*T,AX0p9' 6Q$Xh:d09>#$҇lPnjLbo8Za^y{uKc#zbqM".Y7Ǡd.p%] LQRE[QRbHF(F)>F'cQE6S4,v4)6 4 .2(;y!\5+`1SM*rh\&T 8RL11N1N E. . mmI@  )6@Xf)*@PALDxE1F iEPq! 28ǭ*F 95f(‚3zle HЈ=ҧ~5"*v2cnj-vޥr(M  MA`B8}i$ {ҟtޢb}IVDI߭&ps0Q5,N#L@qI^}E%p@6㹦4\ނ!݌=yMC`f*y'l >QqOt#h뚍픜 0^GzM 4";`Brү:+)#T ힵW5=*-5aך2O8.OzaV#=6ArTsM}):!'SQpÎnbi0!85&1RsޑN*.= 򐭜s z+Ȼ7L/ Xzzۭ5DzRHw zA:Lf敟#ݚ3MQ`ztsLM МR%jTB<@*0M4_1Ԥ2H>RqZ]ۤz qޘ}3pڝАXΐ$3׵C,`2O8w!BGcE+6yrIqTs"ߠV*|c?V~NOZhw}4=& 9HI4`B0y@JJZ(RS1@ъ(ъcR⊁IR㎧G QQA`< MDʓ@5:lk3S,"9i [CSq@=; 8GvYEUy'Sϯj.v]ӄ  SGA EIAݐ:T% l*HČq\U צ}jH=H6qHq9uQT:i @ j8Rqvyw.`0 _9Qޑcǭ; =iVlġ895n1\ N*`1֩BrxWP=q֦E!B*/8{ Inޣ,X@EqҶ Qb=(8P{T[iKz<֝֨Y{Ֆ'#J$h*;anqj"2= jVHs(*~P9z%'ԡ8B#&1$r~ (l3g֗9(Ęӟšy8E v <4%;QL.) OZ`V8zS8 ;WrJf@],OAZf2448!whvøਧ'LR8cM,Glҫ׿QHw`8ǩޞ`(%x=-Gr"$sMqԆC}iD>X#ޣd+W!wG˞1;m/ 5a9T|<`UyCKQ61,Aސ# p4韭)\gUa\g&sgsژ8Qy>Ie#s֕%Bf;fb"FҘp̛R9'!$siWD`;k;,2)wTKur]ԹFOz<;敇r`p98=?5{Iڋ 2rFrUb}y8Xw,dpx9P8=)i ) 4 C=5;Tz MNLzi#'0FqsEqS7QAEE2٤AeGq'c֬y Q< ԆBF3+ !F}i1f9zbn bB̒FU s5aۿTsɡ cInܓvN iA=;94 ( dJ6iwӥ"$-4n쌊@I8g&E;]&g)t3S&gޠFsҖORO 7bN ɦ+2MM4ёH,IqKqQ 832z~ Sws@͞ɤ4a*@iu;zgޛ2=ióFzf3@rz7S3Fh ݊7ޙL7sF4f.hGw4n>VIQQ抛x4sL)IAsFF (&$y`sH'{. F4j&aژ8#J=x%X{֙%|ӷ0=RT8(6b.iȡ~ip;\,ҦٹpHu9vbMϽ?R|l ܏Z =3Ηzp:qJ H\\v'FT7t*jw'60iv2dpi1bNsEö>ң g3NO$QpsIN ѷyLLҌMx<ќpH@RsלR4psR@%x t=0Eʰ¹?)v4 Ie-()#1Ji4M"`\ MGZ.>T?"u&=)1) 7f'.1Iځ LуG4\zQRQcROJc[sZnG=*"w)6=xa8:p8433z#HfYl)<`V@VS\52Zǖc{⧘,cmrX*" @PgQ S9d [NԅP)9>9fOqBT<%qhX"IV)SsV 8'Ojؾn`@̇spF+zM\=ȪR7hW?!΄fsi*дg1eA\z;ȇ^iF(A2zsaa ܟjx֘@zn=~2MҘ=:Z`+0A"O<Ә\1GA1yOfzdzSOqƂ(lGJ64KpiB~qKisJ4v4`ړ'H94yk̏896^(*L )}gS * $t0GZOh1PY b0OZ' a>q&{;B . Uɢ(қdMJ1=T29u9%x cW#Q$Hv94]߾VqVHꅰ:M;U94rnwP9emrHS2>fGgX6#;< {hH1 vSV ؓ՘ T?ƋA@x8ɶQ^[*x!57*qF7 .vIg5IX~Ft mf$æ-"fSЎW162B 7 V+ۨgϥ;Kq^K)8Uyc񫱂zu$T(qOAN /a*(%O?6;LZE}* Ǡ"jDGB3i\vEdcqJFH 6q̑]@%A/@ ⋊363#sFsh\eWo 2yϥbR1ȦYfw0$F0 9PR#Hy.L7o>4RF7c@h*=j6i/H8?:c_u`RgZUcp+ c*q=GԱ9bc$1I!ur9Q39 ($qȧ)ٷ 3)$ڐ=I1,UWr{} [w28>v#€$FU-j8sD$!`27AXU%sG֤O:h{*ӌU[fRt\)a}Kq*8%THLe[}:Ȣ(I)q݅hGB N-l;Sd'SNbI\U_M+ckۂ>33ZY|{ ysNi#CJ}8'jdq@UPeF.oD0GRinq{ wI1E ǒeTԈH!@8XD;}*`';sCc+HrG,Qzs DhK`Ҕ,`ϸ@wgݒ bҮ0 0GYTa9'Ӛ.;J019p=TO*y=})^9'ۥP,B0\)9i$tl@f*!F@C *:$Y[n:5ybM2z3B.ە)V&R I9']F@ T߷nޙ0txg*G@NNC,JaW;sHUHǐ{r*x11=OS'n qj@46 H<ƦKC @ q1TDŜg2@I}?[ nqAiܸϥ!خ27FM1KCGCMX} ,H t LE& # v{[QNOBOJ n1KЌ}h`W{I'p?cv~§eu:@ݰGqL5"UrFGO5I~yQV\ h0+wf+|Z*ѳL)\dk;R /˃qƭn W‘V# rZ2(a|{`x#28N$ Vc)IM Î(AXtx Btl7zs`DpHUz ~T׸K֡99j&՗fr@#ڤɎ䁜{bP:`z?2NqЊVO7hM Ď@ #FqH$]`v ITw'5(T; sS#19G:1AI%ڪE.GaU2z}h NGOMP7,Msš2rē3ژ-}(&fp< rIn$36Mb<y`#s3[r<>`C b 2rx `Om8h Җ[T<2@boEO>h?DYApY$ v@CvQjĀ<9'eZ6^$dґbyX N?:YF @9Ϯ?*c$Z0䤇3Cđ6lL`dFrǓNĎ̓9ZZb^kHwH:nj pC) 09$`fv>dAOAbQn2z~ h.0UgT* O)B~p@'+f"1!LV4f⧿\zsEXFx,N@ ^L~y1hp3G"wQDR ϡQNs֫-fPdg0jz SxCnd2sֳ|r:N?*>y㪓4$  p3(Kߛ ܜjڟ Ќ=b䱬9B `6)#R[{=0Vlkߎ_uyž? D߶R= Z[QTZwP4b#QMvA q1zcRGzzXi)U#FMUvsS{{|@zy:}M+ʰ-=ACK<RIVr:?SHSR_Ҁ!ÎsSm$dM.Aqך`9w#!*4 l;!X9$ŲO$PbԱ!;:r"*G?G {TszX*u(sހ#xbsޘ!! G'3֣+pG|r)|aRGS^y}GZAr, :n,9Ja͑60IOOYZ6WV$Bym aXA>z$6If56 XKȪ̘r+M;I?LUy $G|U^FI'iނ@8CHn9aXˍ:Tv, y$ٹ$rDL;WX$IVÀ]JwB1wqN$юǡ1v_قAU; +*7$uIa䪞!"!3@?"s(wqE)S>ONJl=O<}h^%U^ݞ2?¥+y~%xYy" c2c<5axh|w3pGIB켌9#DVaВj6.UFFRcx+z˜u(F2A4Č}=zք`91ߞԾX3BԠf}ɔvLE\,nid꥘@=deJfH<|KTseA_͒#jc$K 1iDӯaVGOWq+ u.'sjC,\3LXFKcD&Y0>sO]K)R> J:9-'=n1'4Ue$zS@wR$ܡ&8jlszAx) cz~A$sU^Dv }@P;.03LVS}QPΊ`\j`~=NTѺ"SGR?!Lp89@@H+&mݎ@wtQ.໱I ` }}nɉ#*s楌m,dl&:("r^HQW9<)8TqQXc,(*NO| 9PbYacsԂA5+0;B&NsJұv `@%Td tZrT߸99NIecHlHwCpO'2T~zx+' BE@Y .B[<:dTS.e>X02I.,2@8ҥ\`H$Ȟ[qQpXIɱ&tP@ 3#!ImX$@(lfP98*i@Wam$c#ң3n0]dr_8=]1 ghMYA}i6 h%̯!>Go™w,@.Ar|<7LOun#,ہ<ƣ"APIz/h#{Ԉe.FFqUն8LbR2qHZ Vvp3Tr |9D%7b@c=)!`AG8܄AsQyDSҘ6[aCrz08;0Dw0yMx6:ۚHdCJ|A[6HI$< rZ\:U𛃑p2s@1C rpp J-UVrNqj'؃*Ap@Ìu mM8t*B#$~$EnNA9P7#@,3 %qvvX ?1 /;jCu l˚[VViXpӚ*s/ SIG.T qצu RT8eúІQ~U*ԍ-T$לPq޻e8}I] ۾\t5IF@JsO3PW Mt` 1|L,b8݉ I^zbi-#aI=N+ᶡ_ʣvj)o ÎÜ;`АsB:Sy#i걗(eiUN9,RϒFON{q.2! }$8= ssMhX˒S3xTRM=4PNC6x'g,A98U$QO=(u|eIb?R(a#+ 'y~1 ԗ&T{*(a4ɏ1cfXc\.y  NI__J(Y^loΊb?='(  ` Bhttp://www.oceandatastandards.orgDhttp://www.oceandatastandards.org/Bhttp://www.oceandatastandards.orgDhttp://www.oceandatastandards.org// 0DArialngs088(#2 0DTimesngs088(#2 0 DWingdings088(#2 0@ .  @n?" dd@  @@`` ld<P   "#bS 129=>?@ABCDIJKLMNO/Xb$5xϰ֬O%BdYR$IVX*\;Y 0AApf3@81ʚ;Y7ʚ;g41d1d%ؖ2 0~ppp@ <4dddd 08# 0___PPT10 ___PPT9($?  % xThe JCOMM/IODE Ocean Data Standards Process Paul N. Oloo Oceanography & Marine Meteorological Services Kenya Met. Dept.Jy+00f(fL 5@ 2OUTLINEIntroduction Objectives of ODS Pilot project Key Deliverables of ODS Pilot project Challenges faced in the ODS Pilot project Objectives of the ODS Workshop Issues preventing the ODS Process from meetingoriginal timelines for proposalresolution. Expected Outcomes for the ODS process " 8 Introduction   The Ocean Data Standards (ODS) Process was the outcome of the Forum on Oceanographic Data Management and Exchange Standards that was held January 21-25, 2008 in Oostende, Belgium. The meeting recommended a formal process to submit and publish standards. " ,>  < 9! The Forum agreed that a standard process must: Adopted standards only after testing (where this makes sense) Be open and transparent Create standards with broad support Provide free and easily available documentation Be simple and require limited resources to support Provide simple communication with community Must permit evolution The meeting reviewed processes of ISO, IHO, IOOS, QARTOD, NASA, WMO, DMAC. It proposed the ODS process supported by IODE and JCOMM\/Z ZZ/&O4  E+ Introduction - Standards Process!!($   YThe 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.:"%IODE-JCOMM Standards Process Overview&&!%  F,Process Description $((The overall process is presented in the figure above. There are a number of steps in the process and a number of individuals and groups that have roles to play. Much of the activity related to submission and approval of the standard will take place electronically. There will be face to face meetings of the team responsible for guiding submissions through the process, but approval is not tied to this meeting schedule. PG-Process Description!The process from submission through evaluation may result in a recommended standard for IOC and WMO member/member states. The documentation of the proposal and comments generated through the review are available through the Ocean Data Standards website http://www.oceandatastandards.org .,"yf 0H.Process DescriptionThe entire process is intended to be limited to a maximum of no more than 8 months. Although the timing described in this document should result in a decision more quickly than this, there may be some time expended in identifying individuals to take part in the review. I/Process DescriptionfThere are expected to be circumstances of proposals sufficiently well prepared and tested or of an application of an existing international standard. In these cases, there is a fast track process that can be taken. The determination of whether the proposal meets fast tracking criteria occurs early and allows for a more rapid determination of suitability. gZgJ0 /Polling of individuals and member/member states is an important part of the process. It is through such polling that it will be clear if there is wide spread support for a proposal. Polling will be conducted electronically, with a set period for response. No response will be interpreted as unopposed. ;#!Step 1: Submission of a Proposal  "   <$Step 2: Internal Review =%Step 3: Expert Review "( >&Step 4: Community Review( ?'Step 5: Recommended K1Recommendations on ODS process((1) The ODS process cycle should typically be between 12-24 months. (2) The standards dealt with by the IODE/JCOMM Standards process should be limited to oceanography and marine meteorology only. (3) The meeting was not conclusive on whether proposals could be submitted only by national/international groups or also by projects, individual institutions etc. (4) The meeting further recommended that IODE/JCOMM should be pro-active in considering the need for certain standards rather than only wait for submissions as this would avoid that projects limited in time would create their own practices rather than submit a proposed standard. (5) The meeting recommended establishment of close collaboration with other organizations such as GEOSS to widely advertise and promote the adopted standards. (6) The IODE Project Office should be used to support internal discussions, including setting up a voting/polling system. "P@( Conclusion 0   bCommunity participation necessary for submitting standards. Process is very important but must engage community. Standards are useless if not implemented. Standards will evolve with changing needs. Using standards will have strong, positive impact on making data interoperability and exchange. Go to http://www.oceandatastandards.org for more informationZ& " = " &"F&      0,M""Thank You for Kind Your Attention!##0 /8 %   0` 33` Sf3f` 33g` f` www3PP` ZXdbmo` \ғ3y`Ӣ` 3f3ff` 3f3FKf` hk]wwwfܹ` ff>>\`Y{ff` R>&- {p_/̴>?" dd@,|?" dd@   " @ ` n?" dd@   @@``PX     @ ` ` p>> J(    6  `}  T Click to edit Master title style! !  00l  `  RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S  0@s ^ `  X*  0w    Z*  0~ ^ `  Z*f  0A?"   0P~ " P Workshop on Ocean Data Standards 23  25 April 2012, Oostende, Belgium Iz  TA޽h ?Picture2"@` 3380___PPT10._k Default Design   0` 33` Sf3f` 33g` f` www3PP` ZXdbmo` \ғ3y`Ӣ` 3f3ff` 3f3FKf` hk]wwwfܹ` ff>>\`Y{ff` R>&- {p_/̴>?" dd@,|?" dd@   " @ ` n?" dd@   @@``PR    @ ` ` p>> $(    6  `}  T Click to edit Master title style! !  0Ę  `  RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S  0 ^ `  X*  0 ^   Z*  0ب ^ `  Z*H  0޽h ? 33D<___PPT10..^0ye Custom Design 0 zr0  (     0Hk P   k P*    0k    k R*  d  c $ ?  k  0|k  0 k RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S  6Hhk _P  k P*    6kk _  k R*  H  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.@   0  p(  px p c $l̾>p  H p 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.+D=' = @B +:  0  :(  r  S k `  k   S k  k "H  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.e<  0 <(  ~  s *$k `  k ~  s *k ` k H  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.5N`/  0  (  ~  s *k  k   6k   Introduction - Standards Process!!$   H  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.8Nph  0  $(  $r $ S (k` k  $ s \k0e0e #" 0e `}  k H $ 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.6`8;  0 RJ(  x  c $k`  k   0pk@ p z>Proposals submitted, according to the template, to the IODE-PO ?0 ?f  0k) BStep 1 0 f  0k BStep 2 0 f  0nki P  BStep 3 0 f  0,3   BStep 4 0 f  0t5 BStep 5 0 f  B5Ԕ"`  nProposal submission"0 f   B<:Ԕ"`` @ iInternal review"0 f   BL<Ԕ"`   g Expert review"0 f    BԔ"`   jCommunity review"0 f   BԔ"`@  e Recommended" 0  f    0T\@  v:The proposal is recommended for wide use in IODE and JCOMM ;0 ;f  0\o @   eThe review is open to the community to determine fitness of the proposal with results within 3 months f0 ff  0@   _Expert team conducts a technical review of fitness of the proposal and responds within 3 months``f  0/@ p KETDMP conduct review of fitness of the proposal and responds within 15 daysLLfXB  0D>@XB  0D>0 XB  0D>  XB  0D> pH  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.<+D=' = @B +$  0 ($(  (r ( S h$ `}   r ( S H%0  H ( 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.P;$  0 ,$(  ,r , S + `   r , S ,   H , 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.`L[$  0 0$(  0r 0 S " `   r 0 S -   H 0 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.P@@@XB  0D3>@@0 XB  0D3> @@ XB  0D3> @@p/  0/p` z Open to any IODE / JCOMM member/member state (s) of IOC and WMO or groups Submissions also considered from other groups that have interests in the management of marine meteorological and oceanographic data. 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. Must use process template Submit to IODE-PO for placement on ODS web siteZ  3)3"3K  3J3<  )" KI  @`XB @ 0D> H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.<+D=' = @B +  0 2*(  x  c $@K     0\@ $ KETDMP conduct review of fitness of the proposal and responds within 15 days L0 Lf  0j3C"?P @Step 10 3  0nP BStep 2 0 f  0i PP  @Step 30 3  0D P  @Step 40 3  0P @Step 50 3   B~3ԔP lProposal submission 0 3    B պԔ"``P@ iInternal review"0 f    BPԺ3Ԕ P  e Expert review 0 3     B(޺3Ԕ P  hCommunity review 0 3    Bhݺ3Ԕ@P  c Recommended 0  3  XB  0D>@@@XB  0D3>@@0 XB  0D3> @@ XB  0D3> @@p\  0@` J 4Ensure proposal is complete and clear Evaluate if purpose is clear, sufficient description, well written, weaknesses, addresses a pressing issue, wide applicability Responses will be collated by the IODE-PO based on above-mentioned structure, and reviewed by the chair of ETDMP. Comments placed on private side of ODS web site Results may be: Fast tracked will be moved directly to step 4  Proposed status. Moved to step 3 ( submitted status) Proposal amended by submitter based on received collated comments. Proposal not considered. FW  W33H qN 4   @`XB @ 0D> H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.<+D=' = @B +5  0 LD(  x  c $     0쵺`  _Expert team conducts a technical review of fitness of the proposal and responds within 3 months `0 `f  0أ3C"?P @Step 10 3  0  ` @Step 20 3  0(i `P  BStep 3 0 f  0\8 `  @Step 40 3  0̺ ` @Step 50 3   BM3ԔP lProposal submission 0 3    B.3Ԕ`P@ gInternal review 0 3    BbԔ"` P  g Expert review"0 f     Bx+3Ԕ P  hCommunity review 0 3    Bê3Ԕ@P  c Recommended 0  3  XB  0D3>@XB  0D>0 XB  0D3>  XB  0D3> pb  0$ʪ   Moderator appointed to guide process ensuring all discussions reach conclusion and there is consensus. Task Team on ODS (ETDMP) assembles expert team to conduct review. Draw team members outside ETDMP, for adequate technical background representation. ODS Task Team then works with the expert team to develop appropriate review criteria to guide the discussions. Comments placed on private side of ODS web site. The IODE-PO establishes website for expert team discussions. Team votes and results may be: >75% support to go to step 4 OR written review of deficiencies and chance to revise Re-evaluation of proposal and result may be: >75% support to go to step 4 OR no further consideration.  T - ; 3T3-393z$ CI J o3 >   @`XB @ 0D> H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.<+D=' = @B +  0  (  x  c $|R`     0S0 q eThe review is open to the community to determine fitness of the proposal with results within 3 months f0 ff  0$Y3C"?0 @Step 10 3  0]0 @Step 20 3  0(Ai 0P  @Step 30 3  0D 0  BStep 4 0 f  0H0 @Step 50 3   BD3ԔP nProposal submission"0 3    B3Ԕ`P@ iInternal review"0 3    B$3Ԕ P  g Expert review"0 3     B Ԕ"` P  jCommunity review"0 f    B\3Ԕ@P  c Recommended 0  3  XB  0D3>@XB  0D3>0 XB  0D>  XB  0D3> p  0`p  Community notified by email, CL, web site announcements on  proposed status. Full on-line forum for public comments. Moderator guides process ensuring all discussions reach conclusion and there is consensus. Invite experiments or testing of proposal. All IODE and JCOMM member / member states polled with one vote per member. If vote is >75% support then go to step 5 If not, then: Invite a revised proposal No further consideration Suspend proposal to allow more testing (3 month deadline) then vote again.F ~ 3~34 B, L  @`XB @ 0D>@ H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.<+D=' = @B +D  0 [S0 (   x   c $l      0`  v:The proposal is recommended for wide use in IODE and JCOMM ;0 ;f   0H3C"?0 @Step 10 3   0t0 @Step 20 3   0xi 0P  @Step 30 3   0T| 0  @Step 40 3   0T 0 BStep 5 0 f   Bl3ԔP lProposal submission 0 3    B3Ԕ`P@ gInternal review 0 3    BP3Ԕ P  e Expert review 0 3     B3Ԕ P  hCommunity review 0 3    BԔ"`@P  e Recommended" 0  f  XB   0D3>@XB   0D3>0 XB   0D3>  XB   0D> p   0D  6zIODE-PO notifies community by email, CL, web site announcements on  recommended status. Provision of all information on public web site Encourage all IODE / JCOMM members to implement as rapidly as possible Establish registry to record when organizations have implemented. The chair of IODE and the chair of the DMPA will prepare appropriate resolutions on the use of the recommended standard to be submitted to parent bodies for ratification. bY   Y    @`XB  @ 0D>P H   0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.<+D=' = @B +$  0 <$(  <r < S    r < S P   H < 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.HR  0 @R(  ~  s * `     s *L`   "xdH  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.:N`ZK 0  *(  x  c $>  r  S t `    H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.+D=' = @B +  0 t((  t^ t S     k t c $xk  0  k  H t 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10. 0 0((  ^  S       c $$  0    H  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.r0=E'C"%1 3$E8fGIO!jyVKEpVLE_qaceg  K *(  ` Bhttp://www.oceandatastandards.orgDhttp://www.oceandatastandards.org/Bhttp://www.oceandatastandards.orgDhttp:/Oh+'0d `hx  Slide 1JICA-06JICA-0655Microsoft Office PowerPoint@0lV@ g3@f hGh;  ,T%&" WMFC <8?@ABCDIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW/Xb$5xϰ֬O%BdYR$IVX*\;Y 0AApf3@81ʚ;Y7ʚ;g41d1d%2 0~ppp@ <4dddd 0# 0___PPT10 n___PPT9PH4637($?  %3 STATUS OF THE PENDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN 2010 AND 2011 Paul N. Oloo Oceanography & Marine Meteorological Services Kenya Met. Dept.P:0f(fL E@ 2OUTLINE Proposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange. Proposal No. 2010-01: Proposal to adopt the SeaDataNet common data index (CDI) metadata profile as a standard for oceanographic data exchange. D " P fff Z9! The First proposal is at the Community Review stage. The Second Proposal was withdrawn by the authors at the Expert review stage.*Zff  8 xProposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange.0y" x$x O5 Introduction This standards proposal was submitted to the IOC Project Office for IODE by GE-BICH (The IODE Group of Experts on Biological and Chemical Data Management and Exchange Practices (GE-BICH) in February 2011.L2'Internal Review of Quality Flag Scheme $(&%( RThe Internal Review was conducted by the ETDMP members in February 2011. This took about two weeks. Two ETDMP members participated in the Internal review. They recommended that the standards proposal be moved to the Expert Review stage. They suggested that the primary codes of the Quality flag scheme were simple and easy to implement. The secondary level flags were difficult to implement because the quality information was represented by 3 or more digits and this might be problematic for existing formats to incorporate. There is no clear description on how secondary codes are set up. SZSM4%Expert Review of Quality Flag Scheme 4&($( The expert review report was based on the technical review by Patrice Cousineau, Integrated Science Data Management (ISDM), Fisheries & Oceans, Canada. Michle Fichaut Julie Bosch, NOAA National Coastal Data Development Center/ Data Management and Communications (DMAC). Dr. Lesley J. Rickards, British Oceanographic Data Centre, UK (SeaDataNet representative). Bob Keeley from Canada Chalies Sun and the GTSPP team:>Zb" Z>bF   I  g  )         P6Report of the Expert Review()The description on the application of the Primary level flag which is strictly limited to data quality is well documented including their relationship to other flag schema. Most of the reviewers favoured the Quality Flag scheme standard based on the primary level flags, because it is easy to understand and implement. The scheme does specify a finite list of primary-level quality flags that can be used. More explanatory text might be helpful for a couple of the flags. It needs to be clearly stated when to use a flag value. The concept of the multi-level flagging system, for purposes of data exchange would allow for general data comparisons and queries at a high level.Data delivery formats would have to be adapted to accommodate two levels of QC flags. Afew draft examples of the scheme implementation needs to be provided (or made available online) which would show a snapshot of a data set with its current quality annotation and that same data annotated with the proposed scheme. The practical applications would highlight the need for such a standard.6*" PPO 1  eV 0N3<Report of the Expert Review & 2(Although some reference materials are provided, they stressed on more details on the use of the secondary level flag in this proposal. Some numeric codes are not defined. It needs to state explicitly whether this is a QC flag scale for data values as opposed to complete profiles/time series or metadata, although there may be some metadata that could utilize these flags (e.g. latitude/longitude). Some guidelines should be provided to address the scope of what is expected for secondary fl  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~?     @ !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;>kABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijlmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}Root EntrydO)@c; =Pictures`Current User5SummaryInformation(PowerPoint Document(K-DocumentSummaryInformation8/www.oceandatastandards.org// 0DArialngs0(#2 0"DTimesngs0(#2 0 DWingdings0(#2 0@ .  @n?" dd@  @@`` LT   "#bS 129=>?@ABCDIJKLMNOPQRS/Xb$5xϰ֬O%BdYR$IVX*\;Y 0AApf3@81ʚ;Y7ʚ;g41d1d%2 0~ppp@ <4dddd 0# 0___PPT10 ___PPT9($?  %  STATUS OF THE PENDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN 2010 AND 2011 Paul N. Oloo Oceanography & Marine Meteorological Services Kenya Met. Dept.P:0f(fL E@ 2OUTLINE Proposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange. Proposal No. 2010-01: Proposal to adopt the SeaDataNet common data index (CDI) metadata profile as a standard for oceanographic data exchange. D " P fff Z9! The First proposal is at the Community Review stage. The Second Proposal was withdrawn by the authors at the Expert review stage.*Zff  8 xProposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange.0y" x$x O5 Introduction This standards proposal was submitted to the IOC Project Office for IODE by GE-BICH (The IODE Group of Experts on Biological and Chemical Data Management and Exchange Practices (GE-BICH) in February 2011.L2Internal ReviewRThe Internal Review was conducted by the ETDMP members in February 2011. This took about two weeks. Two ETDMP members participated in the Internal review. They recommended that the standards proposal be moved to the Expert Review stage. They suggested that the primary codes of the Quality flag scheme were simple and easy to implement. The secondary level flags were difficult to implement because the quality information was represented by 3 or more digits and this might be problematic for existing formats to incorporate. There is no clear description on how secondary codes are set up. SZSM4 Expert ReviewN3E+ Introduction - Standards Process!!($   YThe 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.:"%IODE-JCOMM Standards Process Overview&&!%  F,Process Description $((The overall process is presented in the figure above. There are a number of steps in the process and a number of individuals and groups that have roles to play. Much of the activity related to submission and approval of the standard will take place electronically. There will be face to face meetings of the team responsible for guiding submissions through the process, but approval is not tied to this meeting schedule. PG-Process Description!The process from submission through evaluation may result in a recommended standard for IOC and WMO member/member states. The documentation of the proposal and comments generated through the review are available through the Ocean Data Standards website http://www.oceandatastandards.org .,"yf 0H.Process DescriptionThe entire process is intended to be limited to a maximum of no more than 8 months. Although the timing described in this document should result in a decision more quickly than this, there may be some time expended in identifying individuals to take part in the review. I/Process DescriptionfThere are expected to be circumstances of proposals sufficiently well prepared and tested or of an application of an existing international standard. In these cases, there is a fast track process that can be taken. The determination of whether the proposal meets fast tracking criteria occurs early and allows for a more rapid determination of suitability. gZgJ0/Polling of individuals and member/member states is an important part of the process. It is through such polling that it will be clear if there is wide spread support for a proposal. Polling will be conducted electronically, with a set period for response. No response will be interpreted as unopposed. ;#!Step 1: Submission of a Proposal  "   <$Step 2: Internal Review =%Step 3: Expert Review "( >&Step 4: Community Review( ?'Step 5: Recommended K1Recommendations on ODS process((1) The ODS process cycle should typically be between 12-24 months. (2) The standards dealt with by the IODE/JCOMM Standards process should be limited to oceanography and marine meteorology only. (3) The meeting was not conclusive on whether proposals could be submitted only by national/international groups or also by projects, individual institutions etc. (4) The meeting further recommended that IODE/JCOMM should be pro-active in considering the need for certain standards rather than only wait for submissions as this would avoid that projects limited in time would create their own practices rather than submit a proposed standard. (5) The meeting recommended establishment of close collaboration with other organizations such as GEOSS to widely advertise and promote the adopted standards. (6) The IODE Project Office should be used to support internal discussions, including setting up a voting/polling system. "P@( Conclusion 0   bCommunity participation necessary for submitting standards. Process is very important but must engage community. Standards are useless if not implemented. Standards will evolve with changing needs. Using standards will have strong, positive impact on making data interoperability and exchange. Go to http://www.oceandatastandards.org for more informationZ& " = " &"F&      0,M""Thank You for Kind Your Attention!##0/8 %   0  p(  px p c $l̾>p  H p 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.+D='  = @B +:  0  :(  r  S k `  k   S k k "H  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.ex  0 x(  ~  s *kP  k   6k  T Introduction   H  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.8Nph  0 <4(    s *k ` k "H  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.5N`/$  0 0L$(  Lr L S  P    r L S '  `   H L 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.c@z$  0 @$(  @r @ S  T `   r @ S y   H @ 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.`  0   H(  Hr H S X `   H s  0e0e #" 0e `    H H 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.`of$  0 D$(  Dr D S  `}   r D S P, `  H D 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.`Z7r828 vL@vNJ4 tzO V=(  ` Bhttp://www.oceandatastandards.orgDhttp://www.oceandatastandards.org/Bhttp://w ՜.+,0t    On-screen ShowKMD-5' ArialTimes WingdingsDefault DesignCustom DesignSTATUS OF THE PENDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN 2010 AND 2011 Paul N. Oloo Oceanography & Marine Meteorological Services Kenya Met. Dept.OUTLINESlide 3Slide 4 Introduction(Internal Review of Quality Flag Scheme &Expert Review of Quality Flag Scheme Report of the Expert ReviewReport of the Expert Review 2Report of the Expert Review 3Summary of the Expert Review Brief Response from the authors#Detailed Response to Expert Review&Detailed Response to Expert Review..2&Detailed Response to Expert R_,ZJICA-06JICA-06Step 1: 129=PQRSTUVW/Xb$5xϰ֬O%BdYR$IVX*\;Y 0Aags. The proposal tends to be in conflict with established programmes and projects which are using different QC flag schemes (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, Qartod, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI, etc.), that are all based on the GTSPP QC flag scheme. As GTSPP is an IODE programme, with an updated manual published in 2010 by IODE which includes the GTSPP QC flag scale, they recommended consultation with them, in order to get their endorsement or proposed implementation. The Argo Data Management Team has spent a lot of time on QC procedures for real-time and delayed-mode data and the accompanying QC flags. It may fail to be implemented by existing programmes and projects. " P  a         Q7<Report of the Expert Review & 3(The proposed standard can be applied widely across IOC/WMO if developed cooperatively with member states and remains inclusive by considering the many different domains of oceanography and meteorology, but there are resource implications. In conclusion, the proposal is good and addresses a need. Most reviewers favoured a simple QC flag scheme that can be used for many types of data. Most of them were in favour of the primary level flag. However, further work is required to gain agreement with major data collections (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, CCHDO, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI etc) and assess implementation. Some further clarification would be useful for the second level of flags.  " Zd' IW  wR9S8E+ Introduction - Standards Process!!($   YThe 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.:"%IODE-JCOMM Standards Process Overview&&!%  F,Process Description $((The overall process is presented in the figure above. There are a number of steps in the process and a number of individuals and groups that have roles to play. Much of the activity related to submission and approval of the standard will take place electronically. There will be face to face meetings of the team responsible for guiding submissions through the process, but approval is not tied to this meeting schedule. PG-Process Description!The process from submission through evaluation may result in a recommended standard for IOC and WMO member/member states. The documentation of the proposal and comments generated through the review are available through the Ocean Data Standards website http://www.oceandatastandards.org .,"yf 0H.Process DescriptionThe entire process is intended to be limited to a maximum of no more than 8 months. Although the timing described in this document should result in a decision more quickly than this, there may be some time expended in identifying individuals to take part in the review. I/Process DescriptionfThere are expected to be circumstances of proposals sufficiently well prepared and tested or of an application of an existing international standard. In these cases, there is a fast track process that can be taken. The determination of whether the proposal meets fast tracking criteria occurs early and allows for a more rapid determination of suitability. gZgJ0/Polling of individuals and member/member states is an important part of the process. It is through such polling that it will be clear if there is wide spread support for a proposal. Polling will be conducted electronically, with a set period for response. No response will be interpreted as unopposed. ;#!Step 1: Submission of a Proposal  "   <$Step 2: Internal Review =%Step 3: Expert Review "( >&Step 4: Community Review( ?'Step 5: Recommended K1Recommendations on ODS process((1) The ODS process cycle should typically be between 12-24 months. (2) The standards dealt with by the IODE/JCOMM Standards process should be limited to oceanography and marine meteorology only. (3) The meeting was not conclusive on whether proposals could be submitted only by national/international groups or also by projects, individual institutions etc. (4) The meeting further recommended that IODE/JCOMM should be pro-active in considering the need for certain standards rather than only wait for submissions as this would avoid that projects limited in time would create their own practices rather than submit a proposed standard. (5) The meeting recommended establishment of close collaboration with other organizations such as GEOSS to widely advertise and promote the adopted standards. (6) The IODE Project Office should be used to support internal discussions, including setting up a voting/polling system. "P@( Conclusion 0   bCommunity participation necessary for submitting standards. Process is very important but must engage community. Standards are useless if not implemented. Standards will evolve with changing needs. Using standards will have strong, positive impact on making data interoperability and exchange. Go to http://www.oceandatastandards.org for more informationZ& " = " &"F&      0,M""Thank You for Kind Your Attention!##0/8 %$  0 @$(  @r @ S  T   r @ S y   H @ 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.`  0 *" H(  H H S X `  "xd H s  0e0e #" 0e    H H 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.`of:  0 @P:(  Pr P S pi  `}     P S إ 0   "@@@@`H P 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.f}r:  0 D:(  Dr D S  `}    D S P,0  "@@@@`H D 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.`Z7:  0 PT:(  Tr T S  `    T S H  "```H T 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.fh$  0 p\$(  \r \ S Dm `}   r \ S  `  H \ 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.gK$  0 `X$(  Xr X S  E `}   r X S T `  H X 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.gIr,L0Zb" Z>bF   I  g  )         P6Report of the Expert Review()The description on the application of the Primary level flag which is strictly limited to data quality is well documented including their relationship to other flag schema. Most of the reviewers favoured the Quality Flag scheme standard based on the primary level flags, because it is easy to understand and implement. The scheme does specify a finite list of primary-level quality flags that can be used. More explanatory text might be helpful for a couple of the flags. It needs to be clearly stated when to use a flag value. The concept of the multi-level flagging system, for purposes of data exchange would allow for general data comparisons and queries at a high level.Data delivery formats would have to be adapted to accommodate two levels of QC flags. Afew draft examples of the scheme implementation needs to be provided (or made available online) which would show a snapshot of a data set with its current quality annotation and that same data annotated with the proposed scheme. The practical applications would highlight the need for such a standard.6*" PPO 1  eV 0N3<Report of the Expert Review & 2(Although some reference materials are provided, they stressed on more details on the use of the secondary level flag in this proposal. Some numeric codes are not defined. It needs to state explicitly whether this is a QC flag scale for data values as opposed to complete profiles/time series or metadata, although there may be some metadata that could utilize these flags (e.g. latitude/longitude). Some guidelines should be provided to address the scope of what is expected for secondary flags. The proposal tends to be in conflict with established programmes and projects which are using different QC flag schemes (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, Qartod, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI, etc.), that are all based on the GTSPP QC flag scheme. As GTSPP is an IODE programme, with an updated manual published in 2010 by IODE which includes the GTSPP QC flag scale, they recommended consultation with them, in order to get their endorsement or proposed implementation. The Argo Data Management Team has spent a lot of time on QC procedures for real-time and delayed-mode data and the accompanying QC flags. It may fail to be implemented by existing programmes and projects. " P  a         Q7<Report of the Expert Review & 3(The proposed standard can be applied widely across IOC/WMO if developed cooperatively with member states and remains inclusive by considering the many different domains of oceanography and meteorology, but there are resource implications. In conclusion, the proposal is good and addresses a need. Most reviewers favoured a simple QC flag scheme that can be used for many types of data. Most of them were in favour of the primary level flag. However, further work is required to gain agreement with major data collections (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, CCHDO, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI etc) and assess implementation. Some further clarification would be useful for the second level of flags.  " Zd' IW  wR9S8""Thank You for Kind Your Attention!##0/8 %rV |V|S %( / 0DArialngs0(#2 0"DTimesngs0(#2 0 DWingdings0(#2 0Apf3@81mʚ;Y7ʚ;g41d1d%2 0~ppp@ <4dddd 0# r0___PPT10 2___PPT9 4637?  %I STATUS OF THE PENDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN 2010 AND 2011 Paul N. Oloo Oceanography & Marine Meteorological Services Kenya Met. Dept.P:0f(fL E@ 2OUTLINE Proposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange. Proposal No. 2010-01: Proposal to adopt the SeaDataNet common data index (CDI) metadata profile as a standard for oceanographic data exchange. D " P fff Z9! The First proposal is at the Community Review stage. The Second Proposal was withdrawn by the authors at the Expert review stage.*Zff  8 xProposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange.0y" x$x O5 Introduction This standards proposal was submitted to the IOC Project Office for IODE by GE-BICH (The IODE Group of Experts on Biological and Chemical Data Management and Exchange Practices (GE-BICH) in February 2011.L2'Internal Review of Quality Flag Scheme $(&%( RThe Internal Review was conducted by the ETDMP members in February 2011. This took about two weeks. Two ETDMP members participated in the Internal review. They recommended that the standards proposal be moved to the Expert Review stage. They suggested that the primary codes of the Quality flag scheme were simple and easy to implement. The secondary level flags were difficult to implement because the quality information was represented by 3 or more digits and this might be problematic for existing formats to incorporate. There is no clear description on how secondary codes are set up. SZSM4%Expert Review of Quality Flag Scheme 4&($( The expert review report was based on the technical review by Patrice Cousineau, Integrated Science Data Management (ISDM), Fisheries & Oceans, Canada. Michle Fichaut of SeaDataNet Julie Bosch, NOAA National Coastal Data Development Center/ Data Management and Communications (DMAC). Dr. Lesley J. Rickards, British Oceanographic Data Centre, UK (SeaDataNet representative). Bob Keeley from Canada Chalies Sun and the GTSPP team:>Zp" Z>pF   I  g  )         P6Report of the Expert Review()The description on the application of the Primary level flag which is strictly limited to data quality is well documented including their relationship to other flag schema. Most of the reviewers favoured the Quality Flag scheme standard based on the primary level flags, because it is easy to understand and implement. The scheme does specify a finite list of primary-level quality flags that can be used. More explanatory text might be helpful for a couple of the flags. It needs to be clearly stated when to use a flag value. The concept of the multi-level flagging system, for purposes of data exchange would allow for general data comparisons and queries at a high level.Data delivery formats would have to be adapted to accommodate two levels of QC flags. Afew draft examples of the scheme implementation needs to be provided (or made available online) which would show a snapshot of a data set with its current quality annotation and that same data annotated with the proposed scheme. The practical applications would highlight the need for such a standard.6*" PPO 1  eV 0N3<Report of the Expert Review & 2(Although some reference materials are provided, they stressed on more details on the use of the secondary level flag in this proposal. Some numeric codes are not defined. It needs to state explicitly whether this is a QC flag scale for data values as opposed to complete profiles/time series or metadata, although there may be some metadata that could utilize these flags (e.g. latitude/longitude). Some guidelines should be provided to address the scope of what is expected for secondary flags. The proposal tends to be in conflict with established programmes and projects which are using different QC flag schemes (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, Qartod, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI, etc.), that are all based on the GTSPP QC flag scheme. As GTSPP is an IODE programme, with an updated manual published in 2010 by IODE which includes the GTSPP QC flag scale, they recommended consultation with them, in order to get their endorsement or proposed implementation. The Argo Data Management Team has spent a lot of time on QC procedures for real-time and delayed-mode data and the accompanying QC flags. It may fail to be implemented by existing programmes and projects. " P  a         Q7<Report of the Expert Review & 3(The proposed standard can be applied widely across IOC/WMO if developed cooperatively with member states and remains inclusive by considering the many different domains of oceanography and meteorology, but there are resource implications. In conclusion, the proposal is good and addresses a need. Most reviewers favoured a simple QC flag scheme that can be used for many types of data. Most of them were in favour of the primary level flag. However, further work is required to gain agreement with major data collections (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, CCHDO, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI etc) and assess implementation. Some further clarification would be useful for the second level of flags.  " Zd' IW  wR9S8""Thank You for Kind Your Attention!##0 /8 %  0 *" H(  H H S X  "xd H s  0e0e #" 0e    H H 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.`of  0   (  x  c $>  H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.+D=' = @B +r|"zM4 |S &( / 0DArialngs0(#2 0"DTimesngs0(#2 0 DWingdings0(#2 0@ .  @n?" dd@  @@`` \X?   "#bS 129=PQRSTUVW/Xb$5xϰ֬O%BdYR$IVX*\;Y 0AApf3@81mʚ;Y7ʚ;g41d1d%2 0~ppp@ <4dddd 0# r0___PPT10 2___PPT9 4637?  %k STATUS OF THE PENDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN 2010 AND 2011 Paul N. Oloo Oceanography & Marine Meteorological Services Kenya Met. Dept.P:0f(fL E@ 2OUTLINE Proposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange. Proposal No. 2010-01: Proposal to adopt the SeaDataNet common data index (CDI) metadata profile as a standard for oceanographic data exchange. D " P fff Z9! The First proposal is at the Community Review stage. The Second Proposal was withdrawn by the authors at the Expert review stage.*Zff  8 xProposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange.0y" x$x O5 Introduction This standards proposal was submitted to the IOC Project Office for IODE by GE-BICH (The IODE Group of Experts on Biological and Chemical Data Management and Exchange Practices (GE-BICH) in February 2011.L2'Internal Review of Quality Flag Scheme $(&%( RThe Internal Review was conducted by the ETDMP members in February 2011. This took about two weeks. Two ETDMP members participated in the Internal review. They recommended that the standards proposal be moved to the Expert Review stage. They suggested that the primary codes of the Quality flag scheme were simple and easy to implement. The secondary level flags were difficult to implement because the quality information was represented by 3 or more digits and this might be problematic for existing formats to incorporate. There is no clear description on how secondary codes are set up. SZSM4%Expert Review of Quality Flag Scheme 4&($( The expert review report was based on the technical review by Patrice Cousineau, Integrated Science Data Management (ISDM), Fisheries & Oceans, Canada. Michle Fichaut of IFREMER, France (SeaDataNet representative). Julie Bosch, NOAA National Coastal Data Development Center/ Data Management and Communications (DMAC). Dr. Lesley J. Rickards, British Oceanographic Data Centre, UK (SeaDataNet representative). Bob Keeley from Canada Charles Sun and the GTSPP team:>Z" Z>F   I @ g  )         P6Report of the Expert Review()The description on the application of the Primary level flag which is strictly limited to data quality is well documented including their relationship to other flag schema. Most of the reviewers favoured the Quality Flag scheme standard based on the primary level flags, because it is easy to understand and implement. The scheme does specify a finite list of primary-level quality flags that can be used. More explanatory text might be helpful for a couple of the flags. It needs to be clearly stated when to use a flag value. The concept of the multi-level flagging system, for purposes of data exchange would allow for general data comparisons and queries at a high level.Data delivery formats would have to be adapted to accommodate two levels of QC flags. Afew draft examples of the scheme implementation needs to be provided (or made available online) which would show a snapshot of a data set with its current quality annotation and that same data annotated with the proposed scheme. The practical applications would highlight the need for such a standard.6*" PPO 1  eV 0N3<Report of the Expert Review & 2(Although some reference materials are provided, they stressed on more details on the use of the secondary level flag in this proposal. Some numeric codes are not defined. It needs to state explicitly whether this is a QC flag scale for data values as opposed to complete profiles/time series or metadata, although there may be some metadata that could utilize these flags (e.g. latitude/longitude). Some guidelines should be provided to address the scope of what is expected for secondary flags. The proposal tends to be in conflict with established programmes and projects which are using different QC flag schemes (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, Qartod, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI, etc.), that are all based on the GTSPP QC flag scheme. As GTSPP is an IODE programme, with an updated manual published in 2010 by IODE which includes the GTSPP QC flag scale, they recommended consultation with them, in order to get their endorsement or proposed implementation. The Argo Data Management Team has spent a lot of time on QC procedures for real-time and delayed-mode data and the accompanying QC flags. It may fail to be implemented by existing programmes and projects. " P  a         Q7<Report of the Expert Review & 3(The proposed standard can be applied widely across IOC/WMO if developed cooperatively with member states and remains inclusive by considering the many different domains of oceanography and meteorology, but there are resource implications. In conclusion, the proposal is good and addresses a need. Most reviewers favoured a simple QC flag scheme that can be used for many types of data. Most of them were in favour of the primary level flag. However, further work is required to gain agreement with major data collections (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, CCHDO, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI etc) and assess implementation. Some further clarification would be useful for the second level of flags.  " Zd' IW  wR9S8""Thank You for Kind Your Attention!##0 /8 %  0 *" H(  H H S X  "xd H s  0e0e #" 0e    H H 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.`ofrϧM4 S )( / 0DArialngs0(#2 0"DTimesngs0(#2 0 DWingdings0(#2 0@ .  @n?" dd@  @@`` dZB   "#bS 129=PQRSTUVWY/Xb$5xϰ֬O%BdYR$IVX*\;Y 0AApf3@81mʚ;Y7ʚ;g41d1d%2 0~ppp@ <4dddd 0# r0___PPT10 2___PPT9 4637?  %  STATUS OF THE PENDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN 2010 AND 2011 Paul N. Oloo Oceanography & Marine Meteorological Services Kenya Met. Dept.P:0f(fL E@ 2OUTLINE Proposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange. Proposal No. 2010-01: Proposal to adopt the SeaDataNet common data index (CDI) metadata profile as a standard for oceanographic data exchange. D " P fff Z9! The First proposal is at the Community Review stage. The Second Proposal was withdrawn by the authors at the Expert review stage.*Zff  8 xProposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange.0y" x$x O5 Introduction This standards proposal was submitted to the IOC Project Office for IODE by GE-BICH (The IODE Group of Experts on Biological and Chemical Data Management and Exchange Practices (GE-BICH) in February 2011.L2'Internal Review of Quality Flag Scheme $(&%( RThe Internal Review was conducted by the ETDMP members in February 2011. This took about two weeks. Two ETDMP members participated in the Internal review. They recommended that the standards proposal be moved to the Expert Review stage. They suggested that the primary codes of the Quality flag scheme were simple and easy to implement. The secondary level flags were difficult to implement because the quality information was represented by 3 or more digits and this might be problematic for existing formats to incorporate. There is no clear description on how secondary codes are set up. SZSM4%Expert Review of Quality Flag Scheme 4&($( The expert review report was based on the technical review by Patrice Cousineau, Integrated Science Data Management (ISDM), Fisheries & Oceans, Canada. Michle Fichaut of IFREMER, France (SeaDataNet representative). Julie Bosch, NOAA National Coastal Data Development Center/ Data Management and Communications (DMAC). Dr. Lesley J. Rickards, British Oceanographic Data Centre, UK (SeaDataNet representative). Bob Keeley from Canada Charles Sun and the GTSPP team:>Z" Z>F   I @ g  )     + P6Report of the Expert Review()The description on the application of the Primary level flag which is strictly limited to data quality is well documented including their relationship to other flag schema. Most of the reviewers favoured the Quality Flag scheme standard based on the primary level flags, because it is easy to understand and implement. The scheme does specify a finite list of primary-level quality flags that can be used. More explanatory text might be helpful for a couple of the flags. It needs to be clearly stated when to use a flag value. The concept of the multi-level flagging system, for purposes of data exchange would allow for general data comparisons and queries at a high level.Data delivery formats would have to be adapted to accommodate two levels of QC flags. Afew draft examples of the scheme implementation needs to be provided (or made available online) which would show a snapshot of a data set with its current quality annotation and that same data annotated with the proposed scheme. The practical applications would highlight the need for such a standard.6*" PPO 1  eV 0N3<Report of the Expert Review & 2(Although some reference materials are provided, they stressed on more details on the use of the secondary level flag in this proposal. Some numeric codes are not defined. It needs to state explicitly whether this is a QC flag scale for data values as opposed to complete profiles/time series or metadata, although there may be some metadata that could utilize these flags (e.g. latitude/longitude). Some guidelines should be provided to address the scope of what is expected for secondary flags. The proposal tends to be in conflict with established programmes and projects which are using different QC flag schemes (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, Qartod, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI, etc.), that are all based on the GTSPP QC flag scheme. As GTSPP is an IODE programme, with an updated manual published in 2010 by IODE which includes the GTSPP QC flag scale, they recommended consultation with them, in order to get their endorsement or proposed implementation. The Argo Data Management Team has spent a lot of time on QC procedures for real-time and delayed-mode data and the accompanying QC flags. It may fail to be implemented by existing programmes and projects. " P  a         Q7<Report of the Expert Review & 3(The proposed standard can be applied widely across IOC/WMO if developed cooperatively with member states and remains inclusive by considering the many different domains of oceanography and meteorology, but there are resource implications. In conclusion, the proposal is good and addresses a need. Most reviewers favoured a simple QC flag scheme that can be used for many types of data. Most of them were in favour of the primary level flag. However, further work is required to gain agreement with major data collections (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, CCHDO, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI etc) and assess implementation. Some further clarification would be useful for the second level of flags.  " Zd' IW  wT:Summary of the Expert Review(The expert review of the Quality Flag scheme standard was concluded in July 2011. Six experts with experience in oceanography and marine data management reviewed the document. They all agreed that the Quality Flag scheme standard was a good proposal. Therefore based on their views and comments, the QC Flag scheme from GE-BICH has been moved to Community Review, for them to assess the suitability of the standards proposal. However, they insisted on more details on QC Flags in the standards proposal and the need to work very closely with Argo, GTSPP, SeaDataNet, QARTOD, etc to assess implementation and application of the proposed standard. More clarification on the secondary level flags required.P, R9S8""Thank You for Kind Your Attention!##0 /8 %0  0 d0(  dx d c $  `    x d c $P    H d 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.iVrT: T )( / 0DArialngs0(#2 0"DTimesngs0(#2 0 DWieview..3&Detailed Response to Expert Review..4&Detailed Response to Expert Review..5#Thank You for Kind Your Attention!  Fonts UsedDesign Template Slide Titlesngdings0(#2 0@ .  @n?" dd@  @@`` dZB   "#bS 129=PQRSTUVWY/Xb$5xϰ֬O%BdYR$IVX*\;Y 0AApf3@81mʚ;Y7ʚ;g41d1d%2 0~ppp@ <4dddd 0# r0___PPT10 2___PPT9 4637?  %  STATUS OF THE PENDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN 2010 AND 2011 Paul N. Oloo Oceanography & Marine Meteorological Services Kenya Met. Dept.P:0f(fL E@ 2OUTLINE Proposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange. Proposal No. 2010-01: Proposal to adopt the SeaDataNet common data index (CDI) metadata profile as a standard for oceanographic data exchange. D " P fff Z9! The First proposal is at the Community Review stage. The Second Proposal was withdrawn by the authors at the Expert review stage.*Zff  8 xProposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange.0y" x$x O5 Introduction This standards proposal was submitted to the IOC Project Office for IODE by GE-BICH (The IODE Group of Experts on Biological and Chemical Data Management and Exchange Practices (GE-BICH) in February 2011.L2'Internal Review of Quality Flag Scheme $(&%( RThe Internal Review was conducted by the ETDMP members in February 2011. This took about two weeks. Two ETDMP members participated in the Internal review. They recommended that the standards proposal be moved to the Expert Review stage. They suggested that the primary codes of the Quality flag scheme were simple and easy to implement. The secondary level flags were difficult to implement because the quality information was represented by 3 or more digits and this might be problematic for existing formats to incorporate. There is no clear description on how secondary codes are set up. SZSM4%Expert Review of Quality Flag Scheme 4&($( The expert review report was based on the technical review by Patrice Cousineau, Integrated Science Data Management (ISDM), Fisheries & Oceans, Canada. Michle Fichaut of IFREMER, France (SeaDataNet representative). Julie Bosch, NOAA National Coastal Data Development Center/ Data Management and Communications (DMAC). Dr. Lesley J. Rickards, British Oceanographic Data Centre, UK (SeaDataNet representative). Bob Keeley from Canada Charles Sun and the GTSPP team:>Z" Z>F   I @ g  )     + P6Report of the Expert Review()The description on the application of the Primary level flag which is strictly limited to data quality is well documented including their relationship to other flag schema. Most of the reviewers favoured the Quality Flag scheme standard based on the primary level flags, because it is easy to understand and implement. The scheme does specify a finite list of primary-level quality flags that can be used. More explanatory text might be helpful for a couple of the flags. It needs to be clearly stated when to use a flag value. The concept of the multi-level flagging system, for purposes of data exchange would allow for general data comparisons and queries at a high level.Data delivery formats would have to be adapted to accommodate two levels of QC flags. Afew draft examples of the scheme implementation needs to be provided (or made available online) which would show a snapshot of a data set with its current quality annotation and that same data annotated with the proposed scheme. The practical applications would highlight the need for such a standard.6*" PPO 1  eV 0N3<Report of the Expert Review & 2(Although some reference materials are provided, they stressed on more details on the use of the secondary level flag in this proposal. Some numeric codes are not defined. It needs to state explicitly whether this is a QC flag scale for data values as opposed to complete profiles/time series or metadata, although there may be some metadata that could utilize these flags (e.g. latitude/longitude). Some guidelines should be provided to address the scope of what is expected for secondary flags. The proposal tends to be in conflict with established programmes and projects which are using different QC flag schemes (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, Qartod, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI, etc.), that are all based on the GTSPP QC flag scheme. As GTSPP is an IODE programme, with an updated manual published in 2010 by IODE which includes the GTSPP QC flag scale, they recommended consultation with them, in order to get their endorsement or proposed implementation. The Argo Data Management Team has spent a lot of time on QC procedures for real-time and delayed-mode data and the accompanying QC flags. It may fail to be implemented by existing programmes and projects. " P  a         Q7<Report of the Expert Review & 3(The proposed standard can be applied widely across IOC/WMO if developed cooperatively with member states and remains inclusive by considering the many different domains of oceanography and meteorology, but there are resource implications. In conclusion, the proposal is good and addresses a need. Most reviewers favoured a simple QC flag scheme that can be used for many types of data. Most of them were in favour of the primary level flag. However, further work is required to gain agreement with major data collections (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, CCHDO, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI etc) and assess implementation. Some further clarification would be useful for the second level of flags.  " Zd' IW  wT:Summary of the Expert Review(The expert review of the Quality Flag scheme standard was concluded in July 2011. Six experts with experience in oceanography and marine data management reviewed the document. They all agreed that the Quality Flag scheme standard was a good proposal. Therefore based on their views and comments, the QC Flag scheme from GE-BICH has been moved to Community Review, for them to assess the suitability of the standards proposal. However, they insisted on more details on QC Flags in the standards proposal and the need to work very closely with Argo, GTSPP, SeaDataNet, QARTOD, etc to assess implementation and application of the proposed standard. More clarification on the secondary level flags required.P, R9S8""Thank You for Kind Your Attention!##0 /8 %r8 &T 2( / 0DArialngs0(#2 0"DTimesngs0(#2 0 DWingdings0(#2 0@ .  @n?" dd@  @@`` dZB   "#bS 129=PQRSTUVWY/Xb$5xϰ֬O%BdYR$IVX*\;Y 0AApf3@81mʚ;Y7ʚ;g41d1d%2 0~ppp@ <4dddd 0# r0___PPT10 2___PPT9 4637?  %) STATUS OF THE PENDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN 2010 AND 2011 Paul N. Oloo Oceanography & Marine Meteorological Services Kenya Met. Dept.P:0f(fL E@ 2OUTLINE Proposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange. Proposal No. 2010-01: Proposal to adopt the SeaDataNet common data index (CDI) metadata profile as a standard for oceanographic data exchange. D " P fff Z9! The First proposal is at the Community Review stage. The Second Proposal was withdrawn by the authors at the Expert review stage.*Zff  8 xProposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange.0y" x$x O5 Introduction This standards proposal was submitted to the IOC Project Office for IODE by GE-BICH (The IODE Group of Experts on Biological and Chemical Data Management and Exchange Practices (GE-BICH) in February 2011.L2'Internal Review of Quality Flag Scheme $(&%( RThe Internal Review was conducted by the ETDMP members in February 2011. This took about two weeks. Two ETDMP members participated in the Internal review. They recommended that the standards proposal be moved to the Expert Review stage. They suggested that the primary codes of the Quality flag scheme were simple and easy to implement. The secondary level flags were difficult to implement because the quality information was represented by 3 or more digits and this might be problematic for existing formats to incorporate. There is no clear description on how secondary codes are set up. SZSM4%Expert Review of Quality Flag Scheme 4&($( The expert review report was based on the technical review by Patrice Cousineau, Integrated Science Data Management (ISDM), Fisheries & Oceans, Canada. Michle Fichaut of IFREMER, France (SeaDataNet representative). Julie Bosch, NOAA National Coastal Data Development Center/ Data Management and Communications (DMAC). Dr. Lesley J. Rickards, British Oceanographic Data Centre, UK (SeaDataNet representative). Bob Keeley from Canada Charles Sun and the GTSPP team:>Z" Z>F   I @ g  )     + P6Report of the Expert Review()The description on the application of the Primary level flag which is strictly limited to data quality is well documented including their relationship to other flag schema. Most of the reviewers favoured the Quality Flag scheme standard based on the primary level flags, because it is easy to understand and implement. The scheme does specify a finite list of primary-level quality flags that can be used. More explanatory text might be helpful for a couple of the flags. It needs to be clearly stated when to use a flag value. The concept of the multi-level flagging system, for purposes of data exchange would allow for general data comparisons and queries at a high level.Data delivery formats would have to be adapted to accommodate two levels of QC flags. Afew draft examples of the scheme implementation needs to be provided (or made available online) which would show a snapshot of a data set with its current quality annotation and that same data annotated with the proposed scheme. The practical applications would highlight the need for such a standard.6*" PPO 1  eV 0N3<Report of the Expert Review & 2(Although some reference materials are provided, they stressed on more details on the use of the secondary level flag in this proposal. Some numeric codes are not defined. It needs to state explicitly whether this is a QC flag scale for data values as opposed to complete profiles/time series or metadata, although there may be some metadata that could utilize these flags (e.g. latitude/longitude). Some guidelines should be provided to address the scope of what is expected for secondary flags. The proposal tends to be in conflict with established programmes and projects which are using different QC flag schemes (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, Qartod, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI, etc.), that are all based on the GTSPP QC flag scheme. As GTSPP is an IODE programme, with an updated manual published in 2010 by IODE which includes the GTSPP QC flag scale, they recommended consultation with them, in order to get their endorsement or proposed implementation. The Argo Data Management Team has spent a lot of time on QC procedures for real-time and delayed-mode data and the accompanying QC flags. It may fail to be implemented by existing programmes and projects. " P  a         Q7<Report of the Expert Review & 3(The proposed standard can be applied widely across IOC/WMO if developed cooperatively with member states and remains inclusive by considering the many different domains of oceanography and meteorology, but there are resource implications. In conclusion, the proposal is good and addresses a need. Most reviewers favoured a simple QC flag scheme that can be used for many types of data. Most of them were in favour of the primary level flag. However, further work is required to gain agreement with major data collections (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, CCHDO, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI etc) and assess implementation. Some further clarification would be useful for the second level of flags.  " Zd' IW  wT:Summary of the Expert Review(The expert review of the Quality Flag scheme standard was concluded in July 2011. Six experts with experience in oceanography and marine data management reviewed the document. They all agreed that the Quality Flag scheme standard was a good proposal. Therefore based on their views and comments, the QC Flag scheme from GE-BICH has been moved to Community Review, for them to assess the suitability of the standards proposal. However, they insisted on more details on QC Flags in the standards proposal and the need to work very closely with Argo, GTSPP, SeaDataNet, QARTOD, etc to assess implementation and application of the proposed standard. More clarification on the secondary level flags required.P, R9Brief Response from the authors (The key issue of this proposal is the two level scheme with the simple level 1, which suggests ONLY quality flags (unlike many other schemes where quality and other technical flags are mixed at the same level). Specific flags and tests are to be at level 2. It looks like all reviews have agreed on the two level scheme and addressed their questions to level 2. We will add the requested examples, of course, but this will be merely an example, while the well-documented list of the recommended flags for level 2 has been planned for GEBICH IODE joint work and consultations with other major programs and leading groups proposing flag schemes. Both joint meetings and online work has been already planned. We believe that the proposed two level scheme makes possible fruitful cooperation of different programs, rather than arguing on who s scheme is better. As every scheme is good for its program, we are to come at the higher level trying to successfully join efforts of different groups and programs and to end up with a scheme that is accepted and implemented by different groups, programs and organizations.YPYS8""Thank You for Kind Your Attention!##0 /8 %$  0 p\$(  \r \ S Dm `}   r \ S `  H \ 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.gKr&RY9 &[T H( / 0DArialngs0(#2 0"DTimesngs0(#2 0 DWingdings0(#2 0@ .  @n?" dd@  @@`` t^N   "#bS 129=PQRSTUVWYZ[\]/Xb$5xϰ֬O%BdYR$IVX*\;Y 0AApf3@81mʚ;Y7ʚ;g41d1d%2 0~ppp@ <4dddd 0# r0___PPT10 2___PPT9 4637?  %? STATUS OF THE PENDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN 2010 AND 2011 Paul N. Oloo Oceanography & Marine Meteorological Services Kenya Met. Dept.P:0f(fL E@ 2OUTLINE Proposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange. Proposal No. 2010-01: Proposal to adopt the SeaDataNet common data index (CDI) metadata profile as a standard for oceanographic data exchange. D " P fff Z9! The First proposal is at the Community Review stage. The Second Proposal was withdrawn by the authors at the Expert review stage.*Zff  8 xProposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange.0y" x$x O5 Introduction This standards proposal was submitted to the IOC Project Office for IODE by GE-BICH (The IODE Group of Experts on Biological and Chemical Data Management and Exchange Practices (GE-BICH) in February 2011.L2'Internal Review of Quality Flag Scheme $(&%( RThe Internal Review was conducted by the ETDMP members in February 2011. This took about two weeks. Two ETDMP members participated in the Internal review. They recommended that the standards proposal be moved to the Expert Review stage. They suggested that the primary codes of the Quality flag scheme were simple and easy to implement. The secondary level flags were difficult to implement because the quality information was represented by 3 or more digits and this might be problematic for existing formats to incorporate. There is no clear description on how secondary codes are set up. SZSM4%Expert Review of Quality Flag Scheme 4&($( The expert review report was based on the technical review by Patrice Cousineau, Integrated Science Data Management (ISDM), Fisheries & Oceans, Canada. Michle Fichaut of IFREMER, France (SeaDataNet representative). Julie Bosch, NOAA National Coastal Data Development Center/ Data Management and Communications (DMAC). Dr. Lesley J. Rickards, British Oceanographic Data Centre, UK (SeaDataNet representative). Bob Keeley from Canada Charles Sun and the GTSPP team:>Z" Z>F   I @ g  )     + P6Report of the Expert Review()The description on the application of the Primary level flag which is strictly limited to data quality is well documented including their relationship to other flag schema. Most of the reviewers favoured the Quality Flag scheme standard based on the primary level flags, because it is easy to understand and implement. The scheme does specify a finite list of primary-level quality flags that can be used. More explanatory text might be helpful for a couple of the flags. It needs to be clearly stated when to use a flag value. The concept of the multi-level flagging system, for purposes of data exchange would allow for general data comparisons and queries at a high level.Data delivery formats would have to be adapted to accommodate two levels of QC flags. Afew draft examples of the scheme implementation needs to be provided (or made available online) which would show a snapshot of a data set with its current quality annotation and that same data annotated with the proposed scheme. The practical applications would highlight the need for such a standard.6*" PPO 1  eV 0N3<Report of the Expert Review & 2(Although some reference materials are provided, they stressed on more details on the use of the secondary level flag in this proposal. Some numeric codes are not defined. It needs to state explicitly whether this is a QC flag scale for data values as opposed to complete profiles/time series or metadata, although there may be some metadata that could utilize these flags (e.g. latitude/longitude). Some guidelines should be provided to address the scope of what is expected for secondary flags. The proposal tends to be in conflict with established programmes and projects which are using different QC flag schemes (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, Qartod, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI, etc.), that are all based on the GTSPP QC flag scheme. As GTSPP is an IODE programme, with an updated manual published in 2010 by IODE which includes the GTSPP QC flag scale, they recommended consultation with them, in order to get their endorsement or proposed implementation. The Argo Data Management Team has spent a lot of time on QC procedures for real-time and delayed-mode data and the accompanying QC flags. It may fail to be implemented by existing programmes and projects. " P  a         Q7<Report of the Expert Review & 3(The proposed standard can be applied widely across IOC/WMO if developed cooperatively with member states and remains inclusive by considering the many different domains of oceanography and meteorology, but there are resource implications. In conclusion, the proposal is good and addresses a need. Most reviewers favoured a simple QC flag scheme that can be used for many types of data. Most of them were in favour of the primary level flag. However, further work is required to gain agreement with major data collections (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, CCHDO, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI etc) and assess implementation. Some further clarification would be useful for the second level of flags.  " Zd' IW  wT:Summary of the Expert Review(The expert review of the Quality Flag scheme standard was concluded in July 2011. Six experts with experience in oceanography and marine data management reviewed the document. They all agreed that the Quality Flag scheme standard was a good proposal. Therefore based on their views and comments, the QC Flag scheme from GE-BICH has been moved to Community Review, for them to assess the suitability of the standards proposal. However, they insisted on more details on QC Flags in the standards proposal and the need to work very closely with Argo, GTSPP, SeaDataNet, QARTOD, etc to assess implementation and application of the proposed standard. More clarification on the secondary level flags required.P, R9Brief Response from the authors (The key issue of this proposal is the two level scheme with the simple level 1, which suggests ONLY quality flags (unlike many other schemes where quality and other technical flags are mixed at the same level). Specific flags and tests are to be at level 2. It looks like all reviews have agreed on the two level scheme and addressed their questions to level 2. We will add the requested examples, of course, but this will be merely an example, while the well-documented list of the recommended flags for level 2 has been planned for GEBICH IODE joint work and consultations with other major programs and leading groups proposing flag schemes. Both joint meetings and online work has been already planned. We believe that the proposed two level scheme makes possible fruitful cooperation of different programs, rather than arguing on who s scheme is better. As every scheme is good for its program, we are to come at the higher level trying to successfully join efforts of different groups and programs and to end up with a scheme that is accepted and implemented by different groups, programs and organizations.YPYS8"Detailed Response to Expert Review##(We are pleased to know that the proposed two-level quality flag scheme is generally favored by the reviewers. We have also accepted the comments and criticism by the reviewers. Some of the reviewers' questions have been answered by adding or reworking the text of our proposal. Yet, some of the reviewers' questions are answered in this document because the proposed standard is to be reasonably concise or the raised question, though important, is off the scope of our proposal.U=%Detailed Response to Expert Review..2&&$First of all, at the present stage we are seeking adoption of the proposal as a quality flag standard, rather than a standard for the list and technical implementation of tests for data quality evaluation and procedures for data processing. We have found that none of the schemes reviewed satisfied the criteria of providing information on both data quality and data processing history. Besides, mapping one flagged data set to another quality flag scheme often results in information loss because the existing quality flag schemes have been developed for specific projects and tasks, rather than general oceanographic data exchange. The major advantage of the proposed two-level quality flag scheme is that truly quality flags are at the first level, while the list and results of various tests and data processing history are at the second level. Following the reviewers' suggestions and comments, we have added additional explanations for both the primary and secondary level quality flags.PV<%Detailed Response to Expert Review..3&&$Briefly, the primary level is simple and strictly limited to data quality with unambiguous definitions of flags. It provides quick access to quality information to assess the fitness for purpose of the data. The flags at the first level are explicitly qualitative, can be analyzed numerically and the monotonically increasing scheme enables selection based on a minimum quality level. The scheme supports quality flag inheritance, especially useful when data are filtered and/or some derivatives (for example, the water density) are calculated. It should also be emphasized that unambiguous data filtering and easy quality flag inheritance are becoming increasingly important aspects of data processing when more automation and pure machine-to-machine interaction as part of marine observing systems is expected and becomes crucial. None of the existing schemes makes it currently possible. The second level provides information on data processing history and information on the applied quality tests, thus justifying the quality flag applied at the primary level. The level two flags make it possible to combine quality flagged data sets of different origin saving the existing information on the performed tests and/or applying new tests at later stages of data management.PW;%Detailed Response to Expert Review..4&&$VSome examples of mapping the proposed two-level scheme to existing quality flag schemes of ODV, WOCE, GTSPP are suggested in the proposal. Actually any existing quality flag scheme can be mapped to the proposed two-level scheme without information loss because the truly quality flags are mapped to the first level and all other tests and signatures of data processing are mapped to the second level. Thus, any conflicts between the established programs and projects which are using different quality flag schemes are actually impossible because any existing flag scheme can be transformed to the proposed two-level scheme without information loss. Moreover, several data sets with different quality flag schemes can be merged into one data set with the proposed two-level quality scheme preserving quality flags of all initial data sets. Thus, the proposed scheme provides a possibility for different programs and projects to communicate, rather than conflict. This is specifically true, when data from different research domains (for example, physical and biological data) are to be merged into one data set.WPWX>%Detailed Response to Expert Review..5&&$While the proposed standard is universal and free of basic conflicts with the established programs and projects, as it can be mapped with any and even several of them, the work on practical implementation of the second level has been scheduled for the GEBICH IODE work. An example of implementation of the proposed scheme is added to Annex B of the proposal. Yet, this is merely an example of one possible implementation, rather than an officially recommended procedure. When the standard for the quality flag scheme is accepted, consultations and meetings with the established programs and projects will be started in order to clear up the technical implementation issues of the second level quality flags (there are many viable implementations). Those discussions will likely yield a minimum recommended set of quality tests and data processing history flags, as well as agreement from curators of major data collections for the routine utilization of the proposed scheme.P""Thank You for Kind Your Attention!##0 /8 %$  0 p\$(  \r \ S Dm `}   r \ S       !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|~  H \ 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.gK$  0 `X$(  Xr X S  E}   r X S T  H X 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.gI$  0 p$(  pr p S  }   r p S  `  H p 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.jp$  0 l$(  lr l S , }   r l S ?`   H l 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.jp1$  0 h$(  hr h S 4   r h S O  H h 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.j/$  0 t$(  tr t S 0 }   r t S    H t 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.kp<r([R ĤU@Ht> [̱X H( / 0DArialngs0(#2 0"DTimesngs0(#2 0 DWingdings0(#2 0@ .  @n?" dd@  @@`` t^N   "#bS 129=PQRSTUVWYZ[\]/Xb$5xϰ֬O%BdYR$IVX*\;Y 0AApf3@81mʚ;Y7ʚ;g41d1d%2 0~ppp@ <4dddd 0# r0___PPT10 2___PPT9 4637?  %? STATUS OF THE PENDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN 2010 AND 2011 Paul N. Oloo Oceanography & Marine Meteorological Services Kenya Met. Dept.P:0f(fL E@ 2OUTLINE Proposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange. Proposal No. 2010-01: Proposal to adopt the SeaDataNet common data index (CDI) metadata profile as a standard for oceanographic data exchange. D " P fff Z9! The First proposal is at the Community Review stage. The Second Proposal was withdrawn by the authors at the Expert review stage.*Zff  8 xProposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange.0y" x$x O5 Introduction This standards proposal was submitted to the IOC Project Office for IODE by GE-BICH (The IODE Group of Experts on Biological and Chemical Data Management and Exchange Practices (GE-BICH) in February 2011.L2'Internal Review of Quality Flag Scheme $(&%( RThe Internal Review was conducted by the ETDMP members in February 2011. This took about two weeks. Two ETDMP members participated in the Internal review. They recommended that the standards proposal be moved to the Expert Review stage. They suggested that the primary codes of the Quality flag scheme were simple and easy to implement. The secondary level flags were difficult to implement because the quality information was represented by 3 or more digits and this might be problematic for existing formats to incorporate. There is no clear description on how secondary codes are set up. SZSM4%Expert Review of Quality Flag Scheme 4&($( The expert review report was based on the technical review by Patrice Cousineau, Integrated Science Data Management (ISDM), Fisheries & Oceans, Canada. Michle Fichaut of IFREMER, France (SeaDataNet representative). Julie Bosch, NOAA National Coastal Data Development Center/ Data Management and Communications (DMAC). Dr. Lesley J. Rickards, British Oceanographic Data Centre, UK (SeaDataNet representative). Bob Keeley from Canada Charles Sun and the GTSPP team:>Z" Z>F   I @ g  )     + P6Report of the Expert Review()The description on the application of the Primary level flag which is strictly limited to data quality is well documented including their relationship to other flag schema. Most of the reviewers favoured the Quality Flag scheme standard based on the primary level flags, because it is easy to understand and implement. The scheme does specify a finite list of primary-level quality flags that can be used. More explanatory text might be helpful for a couple of the flags. It needs to be clearly stated when to use a flag value. The concept of the multi-level flagging system, for purposes of data exchange would allow for general data comparisons and queries at a high level.Data delivery formats would have to be adapted to accommodate two levels of QC flags. Afew draft examples of the scheme implementation needs to be provided (or made available online) which would show a snapshot of a data set with its current quality annotation and that same data annotated with the proposed scheme. The practical applications would highlight the need for such a standard.6*" PPO 1  eV 0N3<Report of the Expert Review & 2(Although some reference materials are provided, they stressed on more details on the use of the secondary level flag in this proposal. Some numeric codes are not defined. It needs to state explicitly whether this is a QC flag scale for data values as opposed to complete profiles/time series or metadata, although there may be some metadata that could utilize these flags (e.g. latitude/longitude). Some guidelines should be provided to address the scope of what is expected for secondary flags. The proposal tends to be in conflict with established programmes and projects which are using different QC flag schemes (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, Qartod, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI, etc.), that are all based on the GTSPP QC flag scheme. As GTSPP is an IODE programme, with an updated manual published in 2010 by IODE which includes the GTSPP QC flag scale, they recommended consultation with them, in order to get their endorsement or proposed implementation. The Argo Data Management Team has spent a lot of time on QC procedures for real-time and delayed-mode data and the accompanying QC flags. It may fail to be implemented by existing programmes and projects. " P  a         Q7<Report of the Expert Review & 3(The proposed standard can be applied widely across IOC/WMO if developed cooperatively with member states and remains inclusive by considering the many different domains of oceanography and meteorology, but there are resource implications. In conclusion, the proposal is good and addresses a need. Most reviewers favoured a simple QC flag scheme that can be used for many types of data. Most of them were in favour of the primary level flag. However, further work is required to gain agreement with major data collections (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, CCHDO, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI etc) and assess implementation. Some further clarification would be useful for the second level of flags.  " Zd' IW  wT:Summary of the Expert Review(The expert review of the Quality Flag scheme standard was concluded in July 2011. Six experts with experience in oceanography and marine data management reviewed the document. They all agreed that the Quality Flag scheme standard was a good proposal. Therefore based on their views and comments, the QC Flag scheme from GE-BICH has been moved to Community Review, for them to assess the suitability of the standards proposal. However, they insisted on more details on QC Flags in the standards proposal and the need to work very closely with Argo, GTSPP, SeaDataNet, QARTOD, etc to assess implementation and application of the proposed standard. More clarification on the secondary level flags required.P, R9Brief Response from the authors (The key issue of this proposal is the two level scheme with the simple level 1, which suggests ONLY quality flags (unlike many other schemes where quality and other technical flags are mixed at the same level). Specific flags and tests are to be at level 2. It looks like all reviews have agreed on the two level scheme and addressed their questions to level 2. We will add the requested examples, of course, but this will be merely an example, while the well-documented list of the recommended flags for level 2 has been planned for GEBICH IODE joint work and consultations with other major programs and leading groups proposing flag schemes. Both joint meetings and online work has been already planned. We believe that the proposed two level scheme makes possible fruitful cooperation of different programs, rather than arguing on who s scheme is better. As every scheme is good for its program, we are to come at the higher level trying to successfully join efforts of different groups and programs and to end up with a scheme that is accepted and implemented by different groups, programs and organizations.YPYS8"Detailed Response to Expert Review##(We are pleased to know that the proposed two-level quality flag scheme is generally favored by the reviewers. We have also accepted the comments and criticism by the reviewers. Some of the reviewers' questions have been answered by adding or reworking the text of our proposal. Yet, some of the reviewers' questions are answered in this document because the proposed standard is to be reasonably concise or the raised question, though important, is off the scope of our proposal.U=%Detailed Response to Expert Review..2&&$First of all, at the present stage we are seeking adoption of the proposal as a quality flag standard, rather than a standard for the list and technical implementation of tests for data quality evaluation and procedures for data processing. We have found that none of the schemes reviewed satisfied the criteria of providing information on both data quality and data processing history. Besides, mapping one flagged data set to another quality flag scheme often results in information loss because the existing quality flag schemes have been developed for specific projects and tasks, rather than general oceanographic data exchange. The major advantage of the proposed two-level quality flag scheme is that truly quality flags are at the first level, while the list and results of various tests and data processing history are at the second level. Following the reviewers' suggestions and comments, we have added additional explanations for both the primary and secondary level quality flags.PV<%Detailed Response to Expert Review..3&&$Briefly, the primary level is simple and strictly limited to data quality with unambiguous definitions of flags. It provides quick access to quality information to assess the fitness for purpose of the data. The flags at the first level are explicitly qualitative, can be analyzed numerically and the monotonically increasing scheme enables selection based on a minimum quality level. The scheme supports quality flag inheritance, especially useful when data are filtered and/or some derivatives (for example, the water density) are calculated. It should also be emphasized that unambiguous data filtering and easy quality flag inheritance are becoming increasingly important aspects of data processing when more automation and pure machine-to-machine interaction as part of marine observing systems is expected and becomes crucial. None of the existing schemes makes it currently possible. The second level provides information on data processing history and information on the applied quality tests, thus justifying the quality flag applied at the primary level. The level two flags make it possible to combine quality flagged data sets of different origin saving the existing information on the performed tests and/or applying new tests at later stages of data management.PW;%Detailed Response to Expert Review..4&&$VSome examples of mapping the proposed two-level scheme to existing quality flag schemes of ODV, WOCE, GTSPP are suggested in the proposal. Actually any existing quality flag scheme can be mapped to the proposed two-level scheme without information loss because the truly quality flags are mapped to the first level and all other tests and signatures of data processing are mapped to the second level. Thus, any conflicts between the established programs and projects which are using different quality flag schemes are actually impossible because any existing flag scheme can be transformed to the proposed two-level scheme without information loss. Moreover, several data sets with different quality flag schemes can be merged into one data set with the proposed two-level quality scheme preserving quality flags of all initial data sets. Thus, the proposed scheme provides a possibility for different programs and projects to communicate, rather than conflict. This is specifically true, when data from different research domains (for example, physical and biological data) are to be merged into one data set.WPWX>%Detailed Response to Expert Review..5&&$While the proposed standard is universal and free of basic conflicts with the established programs and projects, as it can be mapped with any and even several of them, the work on practical implementation of the second level has been scheduled for the GEBICH IODE work. An example of implementation of the proposed scheme is added to Annex B of the proposal. Yet, this is merely an example of one possible implementation, rather than an officially recommended procedure. When the standard for the quality flag scheme is accepted, consultations and meetings with the established programs and projects will be started in order to clear up the technical implementation issues of the second level quality flags (there are many viable implementations). Those discussions will likely yield a minimum recommended set of quality tests and data processing history flags, as well as agreement from curators of major data collections for the routine utilization of the proposed scheme.P""Thank You for Kind Your Attention!##0 /8 %r > X H( / 0DArialngs0(#2 0"DTimesngs0(#2 0 DWingdings0(#2 0@ .  @n?" dd@  @@`` t^N   "#bS 129=PQRSTUVWYZ[\]/Xb$5xϰ֬O%BdYR$IVX*\;Y 0AApf3@81mʚ;Y7ʚ;g44d4d%2 0ppp@ <4dddd 0# r0___PPT10 2___PPT9 4637?  %? STATUS OF THE PENDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN 2010 AND 2011 Paul N. Oloo Oceanography & Marine Meteorological Services Kenya Met. Dept.P:0f(fL E@ 2OUTLINE Proposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange. Proposal No. 2010-01: Proposal to adopt the SeaDataNet common data index (CDI) metadata profile as a standard for oceanographic data exchange. D " P fff Z9! The First proposal is at the Community Review stage. The Second Proposal was withdrawn by the authors at the Expert review stage.*Zff  8 xProposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange.0y" x$x O5 Introduction This standards proposal was submitted to the IOC Project Office for IODE by GE-BICH (The IODE Group of Experts on Biological and Chemical Data Management and Exchange Practices (GE-BICH) in February 2011.L2'Internal Review of Quality Flag Scheme $(&%( RThe Internal Review was conducted by the ETDMP members in February 2011. This took about two weeks. Two ETDMP members participated in the Internal review. They recommended that the standards proposal be moved to the Expert Review stage. They suggested that the primary codes of the Quality flag scheme were simple and easy to implement. The secondary level flags were difficult to implement because the quality information was represented by 3 or more digits and this might be problematic for existing formats to incorporate. There is no clear description on how secondary codes are set up. SZSM4%Expert Review of Quality Flag Scheme 4&($( The expert review report was based on the technical review by Patrice Cousineau, Integrated Science Data Management (ISDM), Fisheries & Oceans, Canada. Michle Fichaut of IFREMER, France (SeaDataNet representative). Julie Bosch, NOAA National Coastal Data Development Center/ Data Management and Communications (DMAC). Dr. Lesley J. Rickards, British Oceanographic Data Centre, UK (SeaDataNet representative). Bob Keeley from Canada Charles Sun and the GTSPP team:>Z" Z>F   I @ g  )     + P6Report of the Expert Review()The description on the application of the Primary level flag which is strictly limited to data quality is well documented including their relationship to other flag schema. Most of the reviewers favoured the Quality Flag scheme standard based on the primary level flags, because it is easy to understand and implement. The scheme does specify a finite list of primary-level quality flags that can be used. More explanatory text might be helpful for a couple of the flags. It needs to be clearly stated when to use a flag value. The concept of the multi-level flagging system, for purposes of data exchange would allow for general data comparisons and queries at a high level.Data delivery formats would have to be adapted to accommodate two levels of QC flags. Afew draft examples of the scheme implementation needs to be provided (or made available online) which would show a snapshot of a data set with its current quality annotation and that same data annotated with the proposed scheme. The practical applications would highlight the need for such a standard.6*" PPO 1  eV 0N3<Report of the Expert Review & 2(Although some reference materials are provided, they stressed on more details on the use of the secondary level flag in this proposal. Some numeric codes are not defined. It needs to state explicitly whether this is a QC flag scale for data values as opposed to complete profiles/time series or metadata, although there may be some metadata that could utilize these flags (e.g. latitude/longitude). Some guidelines should be provided to address the scope of what is expected for secondary flags. The proposal tends to be in conflict with established programmes and projects which are using different QC flag schemes (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, Qartod, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI, etc.), that are all based on the GTSPP QC flag scheme. As GTSPP is an IODE programme, with an updated manual published in 2010 by IODE which includes the GTSPP QC flag scale, they recommended consultation with them, in order to get their endorsement or proposed implementation. The Argo Data Management Team has spent a lot of time on QC procedures for real-time and delayed-mode data and the accompanying QC flags. It may fail to be implemented by existing programmes and projects. " P  a         Q7<Report of the Expert Review & 3(The proposed standard can be applied widely across IOC/WMO if developed cooperatively with member states and remains inclusive by considering the many different domains of oceanography and meteorology, but there are resource implications. In conclusion, the proposal is good and addresses a need. Most reviewers favoured a simple QC flag scheme that can be used for many types of data. Most of them were in favour of the primary level flag. However, further work is required to gain agreement with major data collections (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, CCHDO, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI etc) and assess implementation. Some further clarification would be useful for the second level of flags.  " Zd' IW  wT:Summary of the Expert Review(The expert review of the Quality Flag scheme standard was concluded in July 2011. Six experts with experience in oceanography and marine data management reviewed the document. They all agreed that the Quality Flag scheme standard was a good proposal. Therefore based on their views and comments, the QC Flag scheme from GE-BICH has been moved to Community Review, for them to assess the suitability of the standards proposal. However, they insisted on more details on QC Flags in the standards proposal and the need to work very closely with Argo, GTSPP, SeaDataNet, QARTOD, etc to assess implementation and application of the proposed standard. More clarification on the secondary level flags required.P, R9Brief Response from the authors (The key issue of this proposal is the two level scheme with the simple level 1, which suggests ONLY quality flags (unlike many other schemes where quality and other technical flags are mixed at the same level). Specific flags and tests are to be at level 2. It looks like all reviews have agreed on the two level scheme and addressed their questions to level 2. We will add the requested examples, of course, but this will be merely an example, while the well-documented list of the recommended flags for level 2 has been planned for GEBICH IODE joint work and consultations with other major programs and leading groups proposing flag schemes. Both joint meetings and online work has been already planned. We believe that the proposed two level scheme makes possible fruitful cooperation of different programs, rather than arguing on who s scheme is better. As every scheme is good for its program, we are to come at the higher level trying to successfully join efforts of different groups and programs and to end up with a scheme that is accepted and implemented by different groups, programs and organizations.YPYS8"Detailed Response to Expert Review##(We are pleased to know that the proposed two-level quality flag scheme is generally favored by the reviewers. We have also accepted the comments and criticism by the reviewers. Some of the reviewers' questions have been answered by adding or reworking the text of our proposal. Yet, some of the reviewers' questions are answered in this document because the proposed standard is to be reasonably concise or the raised question, though important, is off the scope of our proposal.U=%Detailed Response to Expert Review..2&&$First of all, at the present stage we are seeking adoption of the proposal as a quality flag standard, rather than a standard for the list and technical implementation of tests for data quality evaluation and procedures for data processing. We have found that none of the schemes reviewed satisfied the criteria of providing information on both data quality and data processing history. Besides, mapping one flagged data set to another quality flag scheme often results in information loss because the existing quality flag schemes have been developed for specific projects and tasks, rather than general oceanographic data exchange. The major advantage of the proposed two-level quality flag scheme is that truly quality flags are at the first level, while the list and results of various tests and data processing history are at the second level. Following the reviewers' suggestions and comments, we have added additional explanations for both the primary and secondary level quality flags.PV<%Detailed Response to Expert Review..3&&$Briefly, the primary level is simple and strictly limited to data quality with unambiguous definitions of flags. It provides quick access to quality information to assess the fitness for purpose of the data. The flags at the first level are explicitly qualitative, can be analyzed numerically and the monotonically increasing scheme enables selection based on a minimum quality level. The scheme supports quality flag inheritance, especially useful when data are filtered and/or some derivatives (for example, the water density) are calculated. It should also be emphasized that unambiguous data filtering and easy quality flag inheritance are becoming increasingly important aspects of data processing when more automation and pure machine-to-machine interaction as part of marine observing systems is expected and becomes crucial. None of the existing schemes makes it currently possible. The second level provides information on data processing history and information on the applied quality tests, thus justifying the quality flag applied at the primary level. The level two flags make it possible to combine quality flagged data sets of different origin saving the existing information on the performed tests and/or applying new tests at later stages of data management.PW;%Detailed Response to Expert Review..4&&$VSome examples of mapping the proposed two-level scheme to existing quality flag schemes of ODV, WOCE, GTSPP are suggested in the proposal. Actually any existing quality flag scheme can be mapped to the proposed two-level scheme without information loss because the truly quality flags are mapped to the first level and all other tests and signatures of data processing are mapped to the second level. Thus, any conflicts between the established programs and projects which are using different quality flag schemes are actually impossible because any existing flag scheme can be transformed to the proposed two-level scheme without information loss. Moreover, several data sets with different quality flag schemes can be merged into one data set with the proposed two-level quality scheme preserving quality flags of all initial data sets. Thus, the proposed scheme provides a possibility for different programs and projects to communicate, rather than conflict. This is specifically true, when data from different research domains (for example, physical and biological data) are to be merged into one data set.WPWX>%Detailed Response to Expert Review..5&&$While the proposed standard is universal and free of basic conflicts with the established programs and projects, as it can be mapped with any and even several of them, the work on practical implementation of the second level has been scheduled for the GEBICH IODE work. An example of implementation of the proposed scheme is added to Annex B of the proposal. Yet, this is merely an example of one possible implementation, rather than an officially recommended procedure. When the standard for the quality flag scheme is accepted, consultations and meetings with the established programs and projects will be started in order to clear up the technical implementation issues of the second level quality flags (there are many viable implementations). Those discussions will likely yield a minimum recommended set of quality tests and data processing history flags, as well as agreement from curators of major data collections for the routine utilization of the proposed scheme.P""Thank You for Kind Your Attention!##0 /8 %r$> CX H( / 0DArialngs0 ٴ2 0DTimesngs0 ٴ2 0 DWingdings0 ٴ2 0@ .  @n?" dd@  @@`` t^N   "#bS 129=PQRSTUVWYZ[\]/Xb$5xϰ֬O%BdYR$IVX*\;Y 0AApf3@81uʚ;Y7ʚ;g44d4dA2 0ppp@ <4dddd 0ش z0___PPT10 :___PPT94 637?  %@ STATUS OF THE PENDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN 2010 AND 2011 Paul N. Oloo Oceanography & Marine Meteorological Services Kenya Met. Dept.P:0f(fL E@ 2OUTLINE Proposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange. Proposal No. 2010-01: Proposal to adopt the SeaDataNet common data index (CDI) metadata profile as a standard for oceanographic data exchange. B " Pfff Z9! The First proposal is at the Community Review stage. The Second Proposal was withdrawn by the authors at the Expert review stage.*Zff  8 xProposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange.0y" x$x O5 Introduction This standards proposal was submitted to the IOC Project Office for IODE by GE-BICH (The IODE Group of Experts on Biological and Chemical Data Management and Exchange Practices (GE-BICH) in February 2011.L2'Internal Review of Quality Flag Scheme $(&%( mThe Internal Review was conducted by the ETDMP members in February 2011. This took about two weeks. Two ETDMP members participated in the Internal review. They recommended that the standards proposal be moved to the Expert Review stage. They suggested that the primary codes of the Quality flag scheme were simple and easy to implement. The secondary level flags were difficult to implement because the quality information was represented by 3 or more digits and this might be problematic for existing formats to incorporate. There also indicated that there was no clear description on how secondary codes are set up. nZnM4%Expert Review of Quality Flag Scheme 4&($( The expert review report was based on the technical review by Patrice Cousineau, Integrated Science Data Management (ISDM), Fisheries & Oceans, Canada. Michle Fichaut of IFREMER, France (SeaDataNet representative). Julie Bosch, NOAA National Coastal Data Development Center/ Data Management and Communications (DMAC). Dr. Lesley J. Rickards, British Oceanographic Data Centre, UK (SeaDataNet representative). Bob Keeley from Canada Charles Sun and the GTSPP team:>Z" Z>F   I @ g  )     + P6Report of the Expert Review()The description on the application of the Primary level flag which is strictly limited to data quality is well documented including their relationship to other flag schema. Most of the reviewers favoured the Quality Flag scheme standard based on the primary level flags, because it is easy to understand and implement. The scheme does specify a finite list of primary-level quality flags that can be used. More explanatory text might be helpful for a couple of the flags. It needs to be clearly stated when to use a flag value. The concept of the multi-level flagging system, for purposes of data exchange would allow for general data comparisons and queries at a high level.Data delivery formats would have to be adapted to accommodate two levels of QC flags. Afew draft examples of the scheme implementation needs to be provided (or made available online) which would show a snapshot of a data set with its current quality annotation and that same data annotated with the proposed scheme. The practical applications would highlight the need for such a standard.6*" PPO 1  eV 0N3<Report of the Expert Review & 2(Although some reference materials are provided, they stressed on more details on the use of the secondary level flag in this proposal. Some numeric codes are not defined. It needs to state explicitly whether this is a QC flag scale for data values as opposed to complete profiles/time series or metadata, although there may be some metadata that could utilize these flags (e.g. latitude/longitude). Some guidelines should be provided to address the scope of what is expected for secondary flags. The proposal tends to be in conflict with established programmes and projects which are using different QC flag schemes (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, Qartod, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI, etc.), that are all based on the GTSPP QC flag scheme. As GTSPP is an IODE programme, with an updated manual published in 2010 by IODE which includes the GTSPP QC flag scale, they recommended consultation with them, in order to get their endorsement or proposed implementation. The Argo Data Management Team has spent a lot of time on QC procedures for real-time and delayed-mode data and the accompanying QC flags. It may fail to be implemented by existing programmes and projects. " P  a         Q7<Report of the Expert Review & 3(The proposed standard can be applied widely across IOC/WMO if developed cooperatively with member states and remains inclusive by considering the many different domains of oceanography and meteorology, but there are resource implications. In conclusion, the proposal is good and addresses a need. Most reviewers favoured a simple QC flag scheme that can be used for many types of data. Most of them were in favour of the primary level flag. However, further work is required to gain agreement with major data collections (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, CCHDO, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI etc) and assess implementation. Some further clarification would be useful for the second level of flags.  " Zd' IW  wT:Summary of the Expert Review(The expert review of the Quality Flag scheme standard was concluded in July 2011. Six experts with experience in oceanography and marine data management reviewed the document. They all agreed that the Quality Flag scheme standard was a good proposal. Therefore based on their views and comments, the QC Flag scheme from GE-BICH has been moved to Community Review, for them to assess the suitability of the standards proposal. However, they insisted on more details on QC Flags in the standards proposal and the need to work very closely with Argo, GTSPP, SeaDataNet, QARTOD, etc to assess implementation and application of the proposed standard. More clarification on the secondary level flags required.P, R9Brief Response from the authors (The key issue of this proposal is the two level scheme with the simple level 1, which suggests ONLY quality flags (unlike many other schemes where quality and other technical flags are mixed at the same level). Specific flags and tests are to be at level 2. It looks like all reviews have agreed on the two level scheme and addressed their questions to level 2. We will add the requested examples, of course, but this will be merely an example, while the well-documented list of the recommended flags for level 2 has been planned for GEBICH IODE joint work and consultations with other major programs and leading groups proposing flag schemes. Both joint meetings and online work has been already planned. We believe that the proposed two level scheme makes possible fruitful cooperation of different programs, rather than arguing on who s scheme is better. As every scheme is good for its program, we are to come at the higher level trying to successfully join efforts of different groups and programs and to end up with a scheme that is accepted and implemented by different groups, programs and organizations.YPYS8"Detailed Response to Expert Review##(We are pleased to know that the proposed two-level quality flag scheme is generally favored by the reviewers. We have also accepted the comments and criticism by the reviewers. Some of the reviewers' questions have been answered by adding or reworking the text of our proposal. Yet, some of the reviewers' questions are answered in this document because the proposed standard is to be reasonably concise or the raised question, though important, is off the scope of our proposal.U=%Detailed Response to Expert Review..2&&$First of all, at the present stage we are seeking adoption of the proposal as a quality flag standard, rather than a standard for the list and technical implementation of tests for data quality evaluation and procedures for data processing. We have found that none of the schemes reviewed satisfied the criteria of providing information on both data quality and data processing history. Besides, mapping one flagged data set to another quality flag scheme often results in information loss because the existing quality flag schemes have been developed for specific projects and tasks, rather than general oceanographic data exchange. The major advantage of the proposed two-level quality flag scheme is that truly quality flags are at the first level, while the list and results of various tests and data processing history are at the second level. Following the reviewers' suggestions and comments, we have added additional explanations for both the primary and secondary level quality flags.PV<%Detailed Response to Expert Review..3&&$Briefly, the primary level is simple and strictly limited to data quality with unambiguous definitions of flags. It provides quick access to quality information to assess the fitness for purpose of the data. The flags at the first level are explicitly qualitative, can be analyzed numerically and the monotonically increasing scheme enables selection based on a minimum quality level. The scheme supports quality flag inheritance, especially useful when data are filtered and/or some derivatives (for example, the water density) are calculated. It should also be emphasized that unambiguous data filtering and easy quality flag inheritance are becoming increasingly important aspects of data processing when more automation and pure machine-to-machine interaction as part of marine observing systems is expected and becomes crucial. None of the existing schemes makes it currently possible. The second level provides information on data processing history and information on the applied quality tests, thus justifying the quality flag applied at the primary level. The level two flags make it possible to combine quality flagged data sets of different origin saving the existing information on the performed tests and/or applying new tests at later stages of data management.PW;%Detailed Response to Expert Review..4&&$VSome examples of mapping the proposed two-level scheme to existing quality flag schemes of ODV, WOCE, GTSPP are suggested in the proposal. Actually any existing quality flag scheme can be mapped to the proposed two-level scheme without information loss because the truly quality flags are mapped to the first level and all other tests and signatures of data processing are mapped to the second level. Thus, any conflicts between the established programs and projects which are using different quality flag schemes are actually impossible because any existing flag scheme can be transformed to the proposed two-level scheme without information loss. Moreover, several data sets with different quality flag schemes can be merged into one data set with the proposed two-level quality scheme preserving quality flags of all initial data sets. Thus, the proposed scheme provides a possibility for different programs and projects to communicate, rather than conflict. This is specifically true, when data from different research domains (for example, physical and biological data) are to be merged into one data set.WPWX>%Detailed Response to Expert Review..5&&$While the proposed standard is universal and free of basic conflicts with the established programs and projects, as it can be mapped with any and even several of them, the work on practical implementation of the second level has been scheduled for the GEBICH IODE work. An example of implementation of the proposed scheme is added to Annex B of the proposal. Yet, this is merely an example of one possible implementation, rather than an officially recommended procedure. When the standard for the quality flag scheme is accepted, consultations and meetings with the established programs and projects will be started in order to clear up the technical implementation issues of the second level quality flags (there are many viable implementations). Those discussions will likely yield a minimum recommended set of quality tests and data processing history flags, as well as agreement from curators of major data collections for the routine utilization of the proposed scheme.P""Thank You for Kind Your Attention!##0 /8 %$  0 @$(  @r @ S     r @ S   H @ 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.`r(DL2 DEX H( / 0DArialngs0 ٴ2 0DTimesngs0 ٴ2 0 DWingdings0 ٴ2 0@ .  @n?" dd@  @@`` t^N   "#bS 129=PQRSTUVWYZ[\]/Xb$5xϰ֬O%BdYR$IVX*\;Y 0AApf3@81uʚ;Y7ʚ;g44d4dA2 0ppp@ <4dddd 0ش z0___PPT10 :___PPT94 637?  %@ STATUS OF THE PENDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN 2010 AND 2011 Paul N. Oloo Oceanography & Marine Meteorological Services Kenya Met. Dept.P:0f(fL E@ 2OUTLINE Proposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange. Proposal No. 2010-01: Proposal to adopt the SeaDataNet common data index (CDI) metadata profile as a standard for oceanographic data exchange. B " Pfff Z9! The First proposal is at the Community Review stage. The Second Proposal was withdrawn by the authors at the Expert review stage.*Zff  8 xProposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange.0y" x$x O5 Introduction This standards proposal was submitted to the IOC Project Office for IODE by GE-BICH (The IODE Group of Experts on Biological and Chemical Data Management and Exchange Practices (GE-BICH) in February 2011.L2'Internal Review of Quality Flag Scheme $(&%( mThe Internal Review was conducted by the ETDMP members in February 2011. This took about two weeks. Two ETDMP members participated in the Internal review. They recommended that the standards proposal be moved to the Expert Review stage. They suggested that the primary codes of the Quality flag scheme were simple and easy to implement. The secondary level flags were difficult to implement because the quality information was represented by 3 or more digits and this might be problematic for existing formats to incorporate. There also indicated that there was no clear description on how secondary codes are set up. nZnM4%Expert Review of Quality Flag Scheme 4&($( The expert review report was based on the technical review by Patrice Cousineau, Integrated Science Data Management (ISDM), Fisheries & Oceans, Canada. Michle Fichaut of IFREMER, France (SeaDataNet representative). Julie Bosch, NOAA National Coastal Data Development Center/ Data Management and Communications (DMAC). Dr. Lesley J. Rickards, British Oceanographic Data Centre, UK (SeaDataNet representative). Bob Keeley from Canada Charles Sun and the GTSPP team:>Z" Z>F   I @ g  )     + P6Report of the Expert Review()The description on the application of the Primary level flag which is strictly limited to data quality is well documented including their relationship to other flag schema. Most of the reviewers favoured the Quality Flag scheme standard based on the primary level flags, because it is easy to understand and implement. The scheme does specify a finite list of primary-level quality flags that can be used. More explanatory text might be helpful for a couple of the flags. It needs to be clearly stated when to use a flag value. The concept of the multi-level flagging system, for purposes of data exchange would allow for general data comparisons and queries at a high level.Data delivery formats would have to be changed to accommodate two levels of QC flags. Afew draft examples of the scheme implementation needs to be provided (or made available online) which would show a snapshot of a data set with its current quality annotation and that same data annotated with the proposed scheme. The practical applications would highlight the need for such a standard.6*" PPO 1  eV 0N3<Report of the Expert Review & 2(Although some reference materials are provided, they stressed on more details on the use of the secondary level flag in this proposal. Some numeric codes are not defined. It needs to state explicitly whether this is a QC flag scale for data values as opposed to complete profiles/time series or metadata, although there may be some metadata that could utilize these flags (e.g. latitude/longitude). Some guidelines should be provided to address the scope of what is expected for secondary flags. The proposal tends to be in conflict with established programmes and projects which are using different QC flag schemes (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, Qartod, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI, etc.), that are all based on the GTSPP QC flag scheme. As GTSPP is an IODE programme, with an updated manual published in 2010 by IODE which includes the GTSPP QC flag scale, they recommended consultation with them, in order to get their endorsement or proposed implementation. The Argo Data Management Team has spent a lot of time on QC procedures for real-time and delayed-mode data and the accompanying QC flags. It may fail to be implemented by existing programmes and projects. " P  a         Q7<Report of the Expert Review & 3(The proposed standard can be applied widely across IOC/WMO if developed cooperatively with member states and remains inclusive by considering the many different domains of oceanography and marine meteorology, but there are resource implications. In conclusion, the proposal is good and addresses a need. Most reviewers favoured a simple QC flag scheme that can be used for many types of data. Most of them were in favour of the primary level flag. However, further work is required to gain agreement with major data collections (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, CCHDO, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI etc) and assess implementation. Some further clarification would be useful for the second level of flags.  " Zd' IW  wT:Summary of the Expert Review(The expert review of the Quality Flag scheme standard was concluded in July 2011. Six experts with experience in oceanography and marine data management reviewed the document. They all agreed that the Quality Flag scheme standard was a good proposal. Therefore based on their views and comments, the QC Flag scheme from GE-BICH has been moved to Community Review, for them to assess the suitability of the standards proposal. However, they insisted on more details on QC Flags in the standards proposal and the need to work very closely with Argo, GTSPP, SeaDataNet, QARTOD, etc to assess implementation and application of the proposed standard. More clarification on the secondary level flags required.P, R9Brief Response from the authors (The key issue of this proposal is the two level scheme with the simple level 1, which suggests ONLY quality flags (unlike many other schemes where quality and other technical flags are mixed at the same level). Specific flags and tests are to be at level 2. It looks like all reviews have agreed on the two level scheme and addressed their questions to level 2. We will add the requested examples, of course, but this will be merely an example, while the well-documented list of the recommended flags for level 2 has been planned for GEBICH IODE joint work and consultations with other major programs and leading groups proposing flag schemes. Both joint meetings and online work has been already planned. We believe that the proposed two level scheme makes possible fruitful cooperation of different programs, rather than arguing on who s scheme is better. As every scheme is good for its program, we are to come at the higher level trying to successfully join efforts of different groups and programs and to end up with a scheme that is accepted and implemented by different groups, programs and organizations.YPYS8"Detailed Response to Expert Review##(We are pleased to know that the proposed two-level quality flag scheme is generally favored by the reviewers. We have also accepted the comments and criticism by the reviewers. Some of the reviewers' questions have been answered by adding or reworking the text of our proposal. Yet, some of the reviewers' questions are answered in this document because the proposed standard is to be reasonably concise or the raised question, though important, is off the scope of our proposal.U=%Detailed Response to Expert Review..2&&$First of all, at the present stage we are seeking adoption of the proposal as a quality flag standard, rather than a standard for the list and technical implementation of tests for data quality evaluation and procedures for data processing. We have found that none of the schemes reviewed satisfied the criteria of providing information on both data quality and data processing history. Besides, mapping one flagged data set to another quality flag scheme often results in information loss because the existing quality flag schemes have been developed for specific projects and tasks, rather than general oceanographic data exchange. The major advantage of the proposed two-level quality flag scheme is that truly quality flags are at the first level, while the list and results of various tests and data processing history are at the second level. Following the reviewers' suggestions and comments, we have added additional explanations for both the primary and secondary level quality flags.PV<%Detailed Response to Expert Review..3&&$Briefly, the primary level is simple and strictly limited to data quality with unambiguous definitions of flags. It provides quick access to quality information to assess the fitness for purpose of the data. The flags at the first level are explicitly qualitative, can be analyzed numerically and the monotonically increasing scheme enables selection based on a minimum quality level. The scheme supports quality flag inheritance, especially useful when data are filtered and/or some derivatives (for example, the water density) are calculated. It should also be emphasized that unambiguous data filtering and easy quality flag inheritance are becoming increasingly important aspects of data processing when more automation and pure machine-to-machine interaction as part of marine observing systems is expected and becomes crucial. None of the existing schemes makes it currently possible. The second level provides information on data processing history and information on the applied quality tests, thus justifying the quality flag applied at the primary level. The level two flags make it possible to combine quality flagged data sets of different origin saving the existing information on the performed tests and/or applying new tests at later stages of data management.PW;%Detailed Response to Expert Review..4&&$VSome examples of mapping the proposed two-level scheme to existing quality flag schemes of ODV, WOCE, GTSPP are suggested in the proposal. Actually any existing quality flag scheme can be mapped to the proposed two-level scheme without information loss because the truly quality flags are mapped to the first level and all other tests and signatures of data processing are mapped to the second level. Thus, any conflicts between the established programs and projects which are using different quality flag schemes are actually impossible because any existing flag scheme can be transformed to the proposed two-level scheme without information loss. Moreover, several data sets with different quality flag schemes can be merged into one data set with the proposed two-level quality scheme preserving quality flags of all initial data sets. Thus, the proposed scheme provides a possibility for different programs and projects to communicate, rather than conflict. This is specifically true, when data from different research domains (for example, physical and biological data) are to be merged into one data set.WPWX>%Detailed Response to Expert Review..5&&$While the proposed standard is universal and free of basic conflicts with the established programs and projects, as it can be mapped with any and even several of them, the work on practical implementation of the second level has been scheduled for the GEBICH IODE work. An example of implementation of the proposed scheme is added to Annex B of the proposal. Yet, this is merely an example of one possible implementation, rather than an officially recommended procedure. When the standard for the quality flag scheme is accepted, consultations and meetings with the established programs and projects will be started in order to clear up the technical implementation issues of the second level quality flags (there are many viable implementations). Those discussions will likely yield a minimum recommended set of quality tests and data processing history flags, as well as agreement from curators of major data collections for the routine utilization of the proposed scheme.P""Thank You for Kind Your Attention!##0 /8 %:  0 @P:(  Pr P S  `}    P S  0  "@@@@`H P 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.f}r:  0 PT:(  Tr T S ` `    T S   "```H T 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.fh$  0 p$(  pr p S Y}   r p S Z  H p 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.jp$  0 h$(  hr h S (~   r h S 0  H h 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.j/r$P yUW) ]UX H( / 0DArialngs0 ٴ2 0DTimesngs0 ٴ2 0 DWingdings0 ٴ2 0@ .  @n?" dd@  @@`` t^N   "#bS 129=PQRSTUVWYZ[\]/Xb$5xϰ֬O%BdYR$IVX*\;Y 0AApf3@81uʚ;Y7ʚ;g44d4dA2 0ppp@ <4dddd 0ش z0___PPT10 :___PPT94 637?  %@ STATUS OF THE PENDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN 2010 AND 2011 Paul N. Oloo Oceanography & Marine Meteorological Services Kenya Met. Dept.P:0f(fL E@ 2OUTLINE Proposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange. Proposal No. 2010-01: Proposal to adopt the SeaDataNet common data index (CDI) metadata profile as a standard for oceanographic data exchange. B " Pfff Z9! The First proposal is at the Community Review stage. The Second Proposal was withdrawn by the authors at the Expert review stage.*Zff  8 xProposal No. 2011-01: Proposal to adopt a quality flag scheme for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange.0y" x$x O5 Introduction This standards proposal was submitted to the IOC Project Office for IODE by GE-BICH (The IODE Group of Experts on Biological and Chemical Data Management and Exchange Practices (GE-BICH) in February 2011.L2'Internal Review of Quality Flag Scheme $(&%( mThe Internal Review was conducted by the ETDMP members in February 2011. This took about two weeks. Two ETDMP members participated in the Internal review. They recommended that the standards proposal be moved to the Expert Review stage. They suggested that the primary codes of the Quality flag scheme were simple and easy to implement. The secondary level flags were difficult to implement because the quality information was represented by 3 or more digits and this might be problematic for existing formats to incorporate. There also indicated that there was no clear description on how secondary codes are set up. nZnM4%Expert Review of Quality Flag Scheme 4&($( The expert review report was based on the technical review by Patrice Cousineau, Integrated Science Data Management (ISDM), Fisheries & Oceans, Canada. Michle Fichaut of IFREMER, France (SeaDataNet representative). Julie Bosch, NOAA National Coastal Data Development Center/ Data Management and Communications (DMAC). Dr. Lesley J. Rickards, British Oceanographic Data Centre, UK (SeaDataNet representative). Bob Keeley from Canada Charles Sun and the GTSPP team:>Z" Z>F   I @ g  )     + P6Report of the Expert Review()The description on the application of the Primary level flag which is strictly limited to data quality is well documented including their relationship to other flag schema. Most of the reviewers favoured the Quality Flag scheme standard based on the primary level flags, because it is easy to understand and implement. The scheme does specify a finite list of primary-level quality flags that can be used. More explanatory text might be helpful for a couple of the flags. It needs to be clearly stated when to use a flag value. The concept of the multi-level flagging system, for purposes of data exchange would allow for general data comparisons and queries at a high level.Data delivery formats would have to be changed to accommodate two levels of QC flags. Afew draft examples of the scheme implementation needs to be provided (or made available online) which would show a snapshot of a data set with its current quality annotation and that same data annotated with the proposed scheme. The practical applications would highlight the need for such a standard.6*" PPO 1  eV 0N3<Report of the Expert Review & 2(Although some reference materials are provided, they stressed on more details on the use of the secondary level flag in this proposal. Some numeric codes are not defined. It needs to state explicitly whether this is a QC flag scale for data values as opposed to complete profiles/time series or metadata, although there may be some metadata that could utilize these flags (e.g. latitude/longitude). Some guidelines should be provided to address the scope of what is expected for secondary flags. The proposal tends to be in conflict with established programmes and projects which are using different QC flag schemes (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, Qartod, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI, etc.), that are all based on the GTSPP QC flag scheme. As GTSPP is an IODE programme, with an updated manual published in 2010 by IODE which includes the GTSPP QC flag scale, they recommended consultation with them, in order to get their endorsement or proposed implementation. The Argo Data Management Team has spent a lot of time on QC procedures for real-time and delayed-mode data and the accompanying QC flags. It may fail to be implemented by existing programmes and projects. " P  a         Q7<Report of the Expert Review & 3(The proposed standard can be applied widely across IOC/WMO if developed cooperatively with member states and remains inclusive by considering the many different domains of oceanography and marine meteorology, but there are resource implications. In conclusion, the proposal is good and addresses a need. Most reviewers favoured a simple QC flag scheme that can be used for many types of data. Most of them were in favour of the primary level flag. However, further work is required to gain agreement with major data collections (e.g. Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, CCHDO, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI etc) and assess implementation. Some further clarification would be useful for the second level of flags.  " Zd' IW  wT:Summary of the Expert Review(The expert review of the Quality Flag scheme standard was concluded in July 2011. Six experts with experience in oceanography and marine data management reviewed the document. They all agreed that the Quality Flag scheme standard was a good proposal. Therefore based on their views and comments, the QC Flag scheme from GE-BICH has been moved to Community Review, for them to assess the suitability of the standards proposal. However, they insisted on more details on QC Flags in the standards proposal and the need to work very closely with Argo, GTSPP, SeaDataNet, QARTOD, etc to assess implementation and application of the proposed standard. More clarification on the secondary level flags required.P, R9Brief Response from the authors (The key issue of this proposal is the two level scheme with the simple level 1, which suggests ONLY quality flags (unlike many other schemes where quality and other technical flags are mixed at the same level). Specific flags and tests are to be at level 2. It looks like all reviews have agreed on the two level scheme and addressed their questions to level 2. We will add the requested examples, of course, but this will be merely an example, while the well-documented list of the recommended flags for level 2 has been planned for GEBICH IODE joint work and consultations with other major programs and leading groups proposing flag schemes. Both joint meetings and online work has been already planned. We believe that the proposed two level scheme makes possible fruitful cooperation of different programs, rather than arguing on who s scheme is better. As every scheme is good for its program, we are to come at the higher level trying to successfully join efforts of different groups and programs and to end up with a scheme that is accepted and implemented by different groups, programs and organizations.YPYS8"Detailed Response to Expert Review##(We are pleased to know that the proposed two-level quality flag scheme is generally favored by the reviewers. We have also accepted the comments and criticism by the reviewers. Some of the reviewers' questions have been answered by adding or reworking the text of our proposal. Yet, some of the reviewers' questions are answered in this document because the proposed standard is to be reasonably concise or the raised question, though important, is off the scope of our proposal.U=%Detailed Response to Expert Review..2&&$First of all, at the present stage we are seeking adoption of the proposal as a quality flag standard, rather than a standard for the list and technical implementation of tests for data quality evaluation and procedures for data processing. We have found that none of the schemes reviewed satisfied the criteria of providing information on both data quality and data processing history. Besides, mapping one flagged data set to another quality flag scheme often results in information loss because the existing quality flag schemes have been developed for specific projects and tasks, rather than general oceanographic data exchange. The major advantage of the proposed two-level quality flag scheme is that truly quality flags are at the first level, while the list and results of various tests and data processing history are at the second level. Following the reviewers' suggestions and comments, we have added additional explanations for both the primary and secondary level quality flags.PV<%Detailed Response to Expert Review..3&&$Briefly, the primary level is simple and strictly limited to data quality with unambiguous definitions of flags. It provides quick access to quality information to assess the fitness for purpose of the data. The flags at the first level are explicitly qualitative, can be analyzed numerically and the monotonically increasing scheme enables selection based on a minimum quality level. The scheme supports quality flag inheritance, especially useful when data are filtered and/or some derivatives (for example, the water density) are calculated. It should also be emphasized that unambiguous data filtering and easy quality flag inheritance are becoming increasingly important aspects of data processing when more automation and pure machine-to-machine interaction as part of marine observing systems is expected and becomes crucial. None of the existing schemes makes it currently possible. The second level provides information on data processing history and information on the applied quality tests, thus justifying the quality flag applied at the primary level. The level two flags make it possible to combine quality flagged data sets of different origin saving the existing information on the performed tests and/or applying new tests at later stages of data management.PW;%Detailed Response to Expert Review..4&&$VSome examples of mapping the proposed two-level scheme to existing quality flag schemes of ODV, WOCE, GTSPP are suggested in the proposal. Actually any existing quality flag scheme can be mapped to the proposed two-level scheme without information loss because the truly quality flags are mapped to the first level and all other tests and signatures of data processing are mapped to the second level. Thus, any conflicts between the established programs and projects which are using different quality flag schemes are actually impossible because any existing flag scheme can be transformed to the proposed two-level scheme without information loss. Moreover, several data sets with different quality flag schemes can be merged into one data set with the proposed two-level quality scheme preserving quality flags of all initial data sets. Thus, the proposed scheme provides a possibility for different programs and projects to communicate, rather than conflict. This is specifically true, when data from different research domains (for example, physical and biological data) are to be merged into one data set.WPWX>%Detailed Response to Expert Review..5&&$While the proposed standard is universal and free of basic conflicts with the established programs and projects, as it can be mapped with any and even several of them, the work on practical implementation of the second level has been scheduled for the GEBICH IODE work. An example of implementation of the proposed scheme is added to Annex B of the proposal. Yet, this is merely an example of one possible implementation, rather than an officially recommended procedure. When the standard for the quality flag scheme is accepted, consultations and meetings with the established programs and projects will be started in order to clear up the technical implementation issues of the second level quality flags (there are many viable implementations). Those discussions will likely yield a minimum recommended set of quality tests and data processing history flags, as well as agreement from curators of major data collections for the routine utilization of the proposed scheme.P""Thank You for Kind Your Attention!##0 /8 %$  0 l$(  lr l S Xk}   r l S 8l`   H l 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.jp1rV*! ,X