Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

The information contained in this page is derived from SAF Instrument Application v2 and is presented here as a more easily digestible representation of instrument class and series deployment.

Last updated 2013-05-08

16 individual instruments, 11 instrument classes

Deployment Site notation

Regional Scale Node (RSN) Hydrate Ridge

Burn In:
Deploy: 06/28/13

Pacific Shore Station

PN 1A Hydrate Ridge

Slope Base (RS01SLBS)

01A MJ (MP Jbox) (4)

FLOBN - A
OBSBK - A
OSMOI - A
PREST - A
VEL3D - B


Regional Scale Node (RSN) EA Oregon

Burn In:
Deploy: 06/28/13

Pacific Shore Station

PN 1C Endurance Oregon

Offshore Benthic Package (CE04OSBP)

01C LJ (9)

ADCPS - I
CAMDS - B
CTDBP - O
DOSTA - D
HYDBB - A
OPTAA - C
PCO2W - B
PHSEN - D
VEL3D - C

Instrument Classes being deployed in June 2013

Legend
Type of Agent - Instrument Agent (IA), Dataset Agent Real Time (DA RT), Dataset Agent Post Recovery (DA PR), Data Process Agent (DP).  Items marked in red are needed, items marked in green are active in ION.
Class Series MIO IOS
Type of Agent
Comments
ADCPS I
EA   IA , DP

CAMDS B
EA   IA

CTDBP
O
EA
  IA , DP  
DOSTA
D
EA
  IA , DP  
FLOBN A RSN   DAPR
10km cable not installed. Non cabled instrument with no CI presence. Data after recovery.
HYDBB A EA     Coming through ORB?
OBSBK
A
RSN
  IA Coming through ORB?
OPTAA
C
EA
  IA  
OSMOI A RSN     10km cable not installed. Non cabled instrument with no CI presence. Data after recovery
PCO2W
B
EA
  IA , DP  
PHSEN
D
EA
  IA , DP  
PREST A RSN   IA, DP
 
VEL3D B
RSN   IA , DP  
VEL3D
C
EA
  IA , DP  

Labels

favourite favourite Delete
Enter labels to add to this page:
Please wait 
Looking for a label? Just start typing.
  1. Aug 29, 2012

    Bill Kish says:

    RSN instruments - https://confluence.oceanobservatories.org/display/ENG...
  2. Sep 11, 2012

    Bill Kish says:

    From: Matthew Arrott <marrott@ucsd.edu> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:38:16 &#...

    From: Matthew Arrott <marrott@ucsd.edu>

    Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:38:16 -0700

    To: Susan Banahan <sBanahan@oceanleadership.org>, "Kathleen Carr (Contractor)" <kcarr@oceanleadership.org>, "William Bergen (Contractor)" <wbergen@oceanleadership.org>, Tim Cowles <tcowles@oceanleadership.org>, Ed Chapman <echapman@oceanleadership.org>

    Cc: William Pritchett <wpritchett@oceanleadership.org>, Sheri White <swhite@whoi.edu>, Dana Manalang <danam@apl.washington.edu>, Chuck McGuire <mcguire@apl.washington.edu>, Alan Chave <alan@whoi.edu>

    Subject: Re: terminology about nodes, sub-sites etc

    All,

    Just off phone calls with Sheri and Dana. The core issue is that "unit of deployment" for RSN is a "Node" and for CG moorings is the "Subsite". For RSN the term "Subsite" is used to refer to a "Geographic domain of interest".

    The issue with the DOORS ref Module definitions (see below) is that they are NOT explicit with regards to the what is a "unit of deployment". Both Marine IO teams feel that they are compliant with the DOORS definitions and I agree. Unfortunately we need to track "units of deployment" to make this integrated schedule work and have to be context sensitive to when "Subsite" and "Node" mean unit of deploy is at best problematic.

    The way forward that both Dana and Sheri see as workable is to introduce the term "Platform" in between "Subsite" and "Node". A proposed definition for "Platform":

    "The top level unit of physical assembly and deployment to operated at a physical location for a finite period of time."

    This would let RSN's use of Nodes map one for one with Platform and let CG's use of Subsites map one for one with Platform. There is a beauty to this solution in that: 1) neither team has to change their current usage and documentation; 2) the term Platform introduces the concept of "unit of deployment" explicitly, which matches our collective common understanding; and 3) the definitions in SAF and the "B.2 Table:" for Subsite and Node remain in tact and unviolated by either Marine IO.

    This solution solves another gap; which CG's use of Subsite currently has. The gap is that Subsite does not currently support the concepts of "Type" and "Reference Designator." By introduce the terms "Platform Name", "Platform Type" and "Platform Reference", we have the grouping and identification mechanism to; 1) associate like "units of deployment" and track individual "units of deployment"  without have to use the Subsite long name, which is what we have to do now for all CG moorings.

    DOORS Reference Module Definition:

    Subsite: 

    Geographic domain of interest within an array occupied by a collection of physical instances of nodes and/or platforms together with their instruments and sensors.  Examples: Hydrate Ridge, Pioneer Central Surface Mooring, Mobile Assets operating within an Array.

    Node: 

    Entity that aggregates ports and/or distributes power, time, communications; can be chained. Examples:  buoy controller, DCL, glider, profiler, J-Box


    Let's start tomorrow discussion on terminology here.

    Many thanks for the discussion today – progress is a good thing!

    Matthew

    From: Susan Banahan <sBanahan@oceanleadership.org>

    Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:47:52 -0400

    To: "Kathleen Carr (Contractor)" <kcarr@oceanleadership.org>, "William Bergen (Contractor)" <wbergen@oceanleadership.org>, Tim Cowles <tcowles@oceanleadership.org>, Ed Chapman <echapman@oceanleadership.org>

    Cc: Matthew Arrott <marrott@ucsd.edu>, William Pritchett <wpritchett@oceanleadership.org>

    Subject: RE: terminology about nodes, sub-sites etc

    Our L2 Reference Module defines “node” as

    (1) Entity that aggregates ports and/or distributes power, time, communications; can be chained. Examples:  buoy controller, DCL, glider, profiler, J-Box.;

    (2) An abstract unit used to build linked architectural structures. Each node contains activities and possibly links to other nodes.

    Within OOI, and even within RSN terminology, we use “node” broadly.  I think we can continue to use the term “node” but be sure to include the appropriate adjective in front of “node”.

    From: Kathleen Carr (Contractor) 

    Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:15 PM

    To: William Bergen (Contractor); Tim Cowles; Ed Chapman

    Cc: Arrott, Matt; William Pritchett; Susan Banahan

    Subject: RE: terminology about nodes, sub-sites etc

    On the other hand, the B2 table (which started out as Appendix B2 of the CMP) terminology is the basis for the SAF terminology (it's also the basis for the Tracked Design Item table).   This document has been around since the beginning of the program (I think) and has been through numerous CCB's, and no one has yet objected in those CCBs to the general use of the terms platform and node.   Our reference designator system is based on the B2 table terminology.

    Are we saying it is time to scrap (or re-do) the B2 table?  or are we saying that we should have one set of internal deployment terms, and a different set of external terms?  (I worry about time lost in translation if we do that...)

    Kathy

    Kathleen L. Carr

    Requirements and Test Engineer, OOI

    Consortium for Ocean Leadership

    1201 New York Ave NW, 4th floor

    Washington DC  20005

    Voice 202.787.1610

    Cell 720.256.3178

    From: William Bergen (Contractor)
    Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:00 PM
    To: Tim Cowles; Ed Chapman; Kathleen Carr (Contractor)
    Cc: Arrott, Matt; William Pritchett; Susan Banahan
    Subject: RE: terminology about nodes, sub-sites etc

    yes, agree. I was always confused by the SAF terminology and never understood it.

    An item to keep in mind (here comes the old guy comment and motto for the day): "The amount of work is a constant! It is only the way you describe it that makes it seem like a lot or a little."

    I used this motto many times in the past. As an example, we can abstract to the single milestone of "instrument ready for integration on platform" and make the number of milestones appear to go from 5 to 1- therefore it must be a simple effort that is easily within budget and schedule. Or one could list every task completion as a milestone and everyone would freak. But the real work doesn't change.

    William Bergen 

    Systems Engineer, OOI

    Consortium for Ocean Leadership 

    1201 New York Ave NW, 4th floor 

    Washington DC  20005

    Cell 303.803.6723 

    From: Tim Cowles
    Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 12:45 PM
    To: Ed Chapman; Kathleen Carr (Contractor); William Bergen (Contractor)
    Cc: Arrott, Matt; William Pritchett; Susan Banahan
    Subject: terminology about nodes, sub-sites etc

    Hi -

    Lots of potential for improvement here

    Overarching goal is to avoid confusion on the part of external reviewers and the science community.  I think that is much more important than having a nice hierarchy of terms that make sense internally (mostly) but are hard to communicate outside the project.

    A buoy is buoy - a mooring is a mooring - a glider is a glider - none should be called a sub-site or a node

    Thanks,

    Tim

  3. Dec 11, 2012

    Bill Kish says:

    Updated using SAF2 12/07/12.

    Updated using SAF2 12/07/12.

  4. Mar 27, 2013

    Bill Kish says:

    2013-03-27  Summit 1 & 2 are the 10km cable that did not get deployed i...

    2013-03-27  Summit 1 & 2 are the 10km cable that did not get deployed in 2013.

  5. May 08, 2013

    Bill Kish says:

    2013-05-08  Dana said the instruments on Summit 1 & 2 are currently on ...

    2013-05-08  Dana said the instruments on Summit 1 & 2 are currently on hold due to lack of cable.  FLOBN & OSMOI will still go out.  PREST on Summit will be deployed on the seafloor and await the cable.