This report summarizes the results of the Design Weeks period of Iteration 1 of Release 1.
This table shows the status of subsystem planning as of the end of the Design Weeks.
For Task/Subtask List rows, format is Status Code: Iteration 1 tasks defined / Iteration 2 tasks defined.
Code = Status Description
+ = Status is fully complete and realized
√ = Status is 'acceptable'; sufficient information exists to go forward
~ = Status is 'progressing'; more work is needed to be sufficient to go forward
O = Status is 'pending'; some work has been done but progress is not being made
X = Status is 'problematic'; work is significantly behind
( ) = Status is tentative (to be removed by end of week)
R1 = Release 1
I1 = Iteration 1
W1 = Week 1
Italicized participants are involved via prototype work.
|Lead (Acting?)||Michael Meisinger (A)||Tim Freeman, ANL||David Stuebe, ASA||John Graybeal (A)|
|Status Summary||R1 I1 tasks are allocated and prioritized, 1 team engaged.||ANL team rapidly coming on-line, initial anslysis tasks identified.||DM team collaboration produced prioritized tasks for Release 1, and some questions.||Previous detailed investigation produced many still-open questions; I1 S&A work resource-limited.|
|Task List Status||√: 38||√: 20||√: 36 (6,9)||O: 34|
|Subtask List Status||√: 17,7||(√): 11,11||√: 11,15||~: 2,1|
|Principal I1 Subtasks|| Magnet Deliverable
Vertical Prototype MS,IdM,Gov
Acquire Rabbit, DIF
| Evaluate Scheduler
Integrate Nimbus WW & Condor
| Persistent Storage
Data Distribution interface to topics and policy
| Refine Architecture
Initiate OMF instrument integration prototype
|Task/Subtask List Reference||COI R1 List||CEI R1 List||DM R1 List||S&A R1 List|
|Related Prototypes: Status|| √ Agent Contract Network
√ Magnet Messaging Service
~ Message Broker Infrastructure
~ Distributed IPC Facility
| √ Cloud Provisioning Environment
√ Collaboration Tools
| √ Data Exchange
√ Semantic Framework
|Staffing on I1|| UCSD: Dorian, Emilia
NCSU: Munindar, Kartik
Prototypes are aligned
| UCSD: Alex C, Tom I
ANL: Kate K, Tim F, David L
Prototypes are aligned
| UCSD: Paul H, Claudiu F
ASA: David S
UCSD: John G, Ilya Z, Matthew R, Roger U
SURA: Luis B
MBARI: Carlos R
RPI: Peter F
UW: Bill H
RPI: James G
| UCSD: TBH
Lindquist Cons.: Kent L.
MBARI: Duane, Kevin, Brian S
NCSA: Terry F, ?
|Issues and Notes|| A. Effort and Staffing
C. IdM Integration
|A. Team bandwidth|| A. Metadata
B. Resource Lifecycle Alignment
C. Scientific Data Models
D. Catalog Design Patterns
E. IRODS, SRM questions
| A. Staffing
B. Instrument Prototype
All subsystems need to declare their dependencies on other subsystems.
- Should add a subtask in each task list for this.
- When do we try to complete this within Iteration 1?
We're agreed we're using Enterprise Architect. Mostly for resource reasons, our uptake of this is slow, which will start causing issues by LCO.
- What is status of Raytheon SOW to convert existing drawings?
- Can we hope to have guidance from Raytheon (or other) on setting up the EA content?
- Enterprise Architect application delayed due to steep learning curve and setup time
Task lists are needed for the System Implementation activities, for central architecture team activities and development management (development environment) activities
The consolidation of the architecture will be delayed due to travel related absences.
- The number of tasks and topics is big
- For the number and importance of topics, the number of available design and development resources is substantially too little
- The MS Infrastructure and the DIF sub-awards need matching architect and developer resources to receive and iterate
Need to be sure to make the scope of tasks manageable. They are covering advanced technology and are partly open ended
No developer with IdM experience in sight to integrate IdM technologies.
- Will lag behind 2 iterations
The ANL team is still coming up to speed, so require more internal consultation time to come fully up to speed on the technologies and plans.
- This issue should resolve itself in a short time; it just means CEI will get a bit of a slow start.
There are many open questions about what our metadata design results should look like and achieve, and heavy dependencies on COI.
- John wants to have an overarching metadata discussion to make sure we're all on the same page.
- Might need use cases for external and internal users.
There is development on resource lifecycle management in COI Release 2.
- This may need to be aligned (schedule-wise) with the Release 1 resource activities in DM.
We have to have an internal model for our use, and support external formats used by the community.
- Need to have explicit discussion with requirements czars about what the real external format requirements are (precisely).
- John: not sure that internal model selection is as clearcut as it seems to be for Matt.
There is a question about whether the design patterns that we've considered 'required' for the catalogs (to support search) are sufficiently rich to enable necessary search and data download features.
- Existence of PyDAP solution is promising with regard to targeted interaction patterns.
These are potential(definite?) (probably competing) technologies for inclusion in the system.
- What are their intended applications?
- How definitive is their selection?
We do not have an identified team to pursue S&A activities.
- We need to identify a suitable team as quickly as possible.
- In the short term, J&M will execute a 'best-effort-keep-up' strategy.
Lindquist Consulting is identified as a prototype developer, but has not worked through all of the SOW; issues may arise.
- Is the scope of the notional project commensurate with needs/expectations?
- Is the existing S&A documentation sufficient to prototype to?
- How to align this with other work (see D below)?