SAWG MTG Minutes 2011-05-13

From NGDCWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: ==In Attendance== * Dan Kowal * Anna Milan * Phil Jones * Tess Brandon * Amy Pukl * Scott McCormick * Jeremy Throwe ==Round Table== * NODC. **Tess updated the group on her work with th...)
Current revision (12:56, 13 May 2011) (view source)
 
Line 11: Line 11:
* NODC.   
* NODC.   
**Tess updated the group on her work with the EHUX Coastwatch and AVHRR "over oceans" projects and that they are approved in the next release of CLASS.  
**Tess updated the group on her work with the EHUX Coastwatch and AVHRR "over oceans" projects and that they are approved in the next release of CLASS.  
-
** Tess was interested how the management of SAs are being handled in KT and having access to other documents related to archive projects.  She mentioned the "Coastwatch ocean color" SA was done a while ago, but not having permissions to acces "CCBs" assoctiated with it.
+
** Tess was interested how the management of SAs are being handled in KT and having access to other documents related to archive projects.  She mentioned the "Coastwatch ocean color" SA was done a while ago, but not having permissions to acces "CCBs" associated with it.
*** Scott explained there are a couple of issues here: The DCs control the SA documents and should go in the DC folder.
*** Scott explained there are a couple of issues here: The DCs control the SA documents and should go in the DC folder.
*** The broader issue covers access to other parts of KT for the DCs such as CCBs, ICDs.... On the CLASS side, Scott said he'll take an action to resolve this issue.   
*** The broader issue covers access to other parts of KT for the DCs such as CCBs, ICDs.... On the CLASS side, Scott said he'll take an action to resolve this issue.   
Line 40: Line 40:
* Phil confirmed that the SA template is more abbreviated than the one produced by the SAWG - i.e. the "long form."  The ATRAC SA template is viable for small, non-complex archive projects when dealing with one producer, one SIP. If it gets more complex than that, consider using the Long Form.  We discussed the example of Raw data coming in from an external source, and a processed set of data produced by the archive as part of the workflow with two different submission methods and schedules.  This scenario would require the use of the Long Form.
* Phil confirmed that the SA template is more abbreviated than the one produced by the SAWG - i.e. the "long form."  The ATRAC SA template is viable for small, non-complex archive projects when dealing with one producer, one SIP. If it gets more complex than that, consider using the Long Form.  We discussed the example of Raw data coming in from an external source, and a processed set of data produced by the archive as part of the workflow with two different submission methods and schedules.  This scenario would require the use of the Long Form.
* Anna asked about the status of generating dynamic metadata from inputs to the SA form.
* Anna asked about the status of generating dynamic metadata from inputs to the SA form.
-
** Phil explained that the metadata form will be coming in the next release and will repurpose some of the information captured in the SA.  It will still require the user to update the metadata record with additional information.  He emphasized too that ATRAC is not a repository, just a tool to help generate these records and documents.
+
** Phil explained that the metadata form will be coming in the next release and will re-purpose some of the information captured in the SA.  It will still require the user to update the metadata record with additional information.  He emphasized too that ATRAC is not a repository, just a tool to help generate these records and documents.
**In the meantime, the SA provides a place und User Documentation and Metadata to list published papers, spreadsheets, user guides as sources of metadata.
**In the meantime, the SA provides a place und User Documentation and Metadata to list published papers, spreadsheets, user guides as sources of metadata.
** Anna would like to provide input as Phil and Ken Roberts work on the metadata support.  Dan also reminded Phil of Scott Hausman's interest to get Ted Habermann's input as well.  
** Anna would like to provide input as Phil and Ken Roberts work on the metadata support.  Dan also reminded Phil of Scott Hausman's interest to get Ted Habermann's input as well.  
Line 50: Line 50:
* CLASS wants to know what's happening with the NMMR.
* CLASS wants to know what's happening with the NMMR.
* This will be the primarily focus of the next meeting.
* This will be the primarily focus of the next meeting.
-
* Anna clarified that NGDC still needs to approve the decomissioning of the NMMR and adoption of a new metadata management workflow.  When this happens, all stakeholders will be notified (DCs and CLASS) that the transition time is 3 months.  
+
* Anna clarified that NGDC still needs to approve the decommissioning of the NMMR and adoption of a new metadata management workflow.  When this happens, all stakeholders will be notified (DCs and CLASS) that the transition time is 3 months.  
* Anna has been tasked by the COWG to write up a status report in the next couple of weeks. Along the same lines, Scott asked that Anna send an email to him about what new needs (if any) would CLASS need to support in this new arrangement.  They can then perform an impact study.  Anna mentioned a few items such as harvesting from 3 WAFs (at each DC) instead of one; and the use of rsync.  Jeremy hinted at that this may not be a change in requirements, just a change in the "particulars...."
* Anna has been tasked by the COWG to write up a status report in the next couple of weeks. Along the same lines, Scott asked that Anna send an email to him about what new needs (if any) would CLASS need to support in this new arrangement.  They can then perform an impact study.  Anna mentioned a few items such as harvesting from 3 WAFs (at each DC) instead of one; and the use of rsync.  Jeremy hinted at that this may not be a change in requirements, just a change in the "particulars...."
* Plan forward:  Anna will submit this email to Scott and CLASS will evaluate impacts prior to the next meeting such that options, issues can be discussed further.
* Plan forward:  Anna will submit this email to Scott and CLASS will evaluate impacts prior to the next meeting such that options, issues can be discussed further.

Current revision

Contents

In Attendance

  • Dan Kowal
  • Anna Milan
  • Phil Jones
  • Tess Brandon
  • Amy Pukl
  • Scott McCormick
  • Jeremy Throwe

Round Table

  • NODC.
    • Tess updated the group on her work with the EHUX Coastwatch and AVHRR "over oceans" projects and that they are approved in the next release of CLASS.
    • Tess was interested how the management of SAs are being handled in KT and having access to other documents related to archive projects. She mentioned the "Coastwatch ocean color" SA was done a while ago, but not having permissions to acces "CCBs" associated with it.
      • Scott explained there are a couple of issues here: The DCs control the SA documents and should go in the DC folder.
      • The broader issue covers access to other parts of KT for the DCs such as CCBs, ICDs.... On the CLASS side, Scott said he'll take an action to resolve this issue.
      • Tess explained that CLASS has asked about access to the SAs. Let Scott know if there are problems with people getting access to these documents.
    • Anna said that CLASS has been asking about metadata for these new products. For now, Tess will send metadata to Anna. Discussion continued about mapping Xpaths to search criteria in the catalog pages. Tess explained that's not an issue, working closely with CLASS on the Search pages.
  • NGDC
    • Dan discussed the approved recommendation of VIPIR at the last COWG Mtg. Will be proposed next week at the COPB and discussed within the broader context of unfunded projects.
  • CLASS:
    • Scott confirmed the EHUX and ASCPO support for the 5.5 release later in May; ingest will commence thereafter.
    • NPP occupying most of their time these days:
      • NCT4 test going to happen June 8-10; followed by continued operational tests from mid-July to 1st week in August.
      • NPP will trump the other tasks, but Amy with be available for project charters.
    • Review and update of the GOES-R functional reqs. for search and access still on the table. Jeremy explained that Dan and Phil can expect a list of reqs to discuss further as part of the lead up to PDR. We will convene the mtgs to discuss the reqs; CLASS believes that we need to have a reqs doc that reflects a level at level-3. The current Funct. Reqs. is at level-2; it's high level. The SA will reflect these requirements in some fashion, but not the source of the reqs. Need to decide where to capture them: another reqs document or by augmenting the current version. CLASS used to rely heavily on the SA in the early days, but not so much anymore.

ATRAC Presentation by Phil

  • Release 2.2 currently being worked on. The release is late due to resource limitations, but are targeting the end of May.
  • Improvements:
    • Simplified legend
    • Improvements to timeline view.
    • Search filter with several options.
    • Input:
      • Instructions and validations for all forms.
      • 40 questions in the current request form - cull down to 30. - all questions needed for project charter are covered. (Dan asked to see a list and provide feedback.)
      • contacts handled better
      • More flexable table for handling archive IDs.
  • Phil showed the development site (mostly for the SA) and mapped input fields to the actual blocks of content formatted into a report.
  • Discussed places for where to describe references documents. Dan expressed that it's helpful for breaking out the Representation vs. the PDI items. Phil talked about possibly implementing this in the User Documentation Section.
  • Phil confirmed that the SA template is more abbreviated than the one produced by the SAWG - i.e. the "long form." The ATRAC SA template is viable for small, non-complex archive projects when dealing with one producer, one SIP. If it gets more complex than that, consider using the Long Form. We discussed the example of Raw data coming in from an external source, and a processed set of data produced by the archive as part of the workflow with two different submission methods and schedules. This scenario would require the use of the Long Form.
  • Anna asked about the status of generating dynamic metadata from inputs to the SA form.
    • Phil explained that the metadata form will be coming in the next release and will re-purpose some of the information captured in the SA. It will still require the user to update the metadata record with additional information. He emphasized too that ATRAC is not a repository, just a tool to help generate these records and documents.
    • In the meantime, the SA provides a place und User Documentation and Metadata to list published papers, spreadsheets, user guides as sources of metadata.
    • Anna would like to provide input as Phil and Ken Roberts work on the metadata support. Dan also reminded Phil of Scott Hausman's interest to get Ted Habermann's input as well.
  • Discussed the Archive Packaging Section. Phil clarified in the example given how NCDC was the responsible party for doing the packaging prior to delivery to CLASS.
  • IDs. Phil clarified the selection of IDs that can be used for a given archive project. "ACMI" is an NCDC ID that's being used to facilitate the organization of data for eventual migration to CLASS.
  • Discussed the brevity of the Data Access section. Phil showed how some of the search/display metadata is somewhat captured earlier in the data type descriptions, and that the new Access Section is solely for description data access tools available to obtain the data.

Future Topics - NMMR

  • CLASS wants to know what's happening with the NMMR.
  • This will be the primarily focus of the next meeting.
  • Anna clarified that NGDC still needs to approve the decommissioning of the NMMR and adoption of a new metadata management workflow. When this happens, all stakeholders will be notified (DCs and CLASS) that the transition time is 3 months.
  • Anna has been tasked by the COWG to write up a status report in the next couple of weeks. Along the same lines, Scott asked that Anna send an email to him about what new needs (if any) would CLASS need to support in this new arrangement. They can then perform an impact study. Anna mentioned a few items such as harvesting from 3 WAFs (at each DC) instead of one; and the use of rsync. Jeremy hinted at that this may not be a change in requirements, just a change in the "particulars...."
  • Plan forward: Anna will submit this email to Scott and CLASS will evaluate impacts prior to the next meeting such that options, issues can be discussed further.

Next Meeting

  • Friday, June 10, 2011.
Personal tools