Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


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.

Table: Status of Subsystem Planning

Topics  \/    
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
Refine Architecture
Acquire Rabbit, DIF
Evaluate Scheduler
Refine Architecture
Integrate Nimbus WW & Condor
Persistent Storage
MetaData Model
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
~ Hyrax/Ugrid
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
Semantic Prototype
UCSD: John G, Ilya Z, Matthew R, Roger U
SURA: Luis B
MBARI: Carlos R
RPI: Peter F
UW: Bill H
RPI: James G
Lindquist Cons.: Kent L.
MBARI: Duane, Kevin, Brian S
NCSA: Terry F, ?
Issues and Notes A. Effort and Staffing
B. Scoping
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

Issues and Notes

Overall-A. Interfaces/Dependencies

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?

Overall-B. Enterprise Architect

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

Overall-C. Task List Usage

Task lists are needed for the System Implementation activities, for central architecture team activities and development management (development environment) activities

Overall-D. Consolidation Architecture

The consolidation of the architecture will be delayed due to travel related absences.

COI-A. Staffing and Effort

  • 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

COI-B. Scoping

Need to be sure to make the scope of tasks manageable. They are covering advanced technology and are partly open ended

COI-C. IdM Integration

No developer with IdM experience in sight to integrate IdM technologies.

  • Will lag behind 2 iterations

CEI-A. Team Bandwidth

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.

DM-A. Metadata

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.

DM-B. Resource Lifecycle Alignment

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.

DM-C. Scientific Data Models

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.

DM-D. Catalog Design Patterns

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.

DM-E. IRODS, SRM topics

These are potential(definite?) (probably competing) technologies for inclusion in the system.

  • What are their intended applications?
  • How definitive is their selection?

S&A-A. Staffing

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.

S&A-B. Instrument Prototype

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)?
Enter labels to add to this page:
Please wait 
Looking for a label? Just start typing.