2008-01-09: Data Summit Telecon - Meeting Notes
Air Quality Data Summit Planning Group Conference Call January 10, 2008, 2:00 – 3:00pm EST Conference Room C400
Subject of Planning Group:
Air Quality Data Summit Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 February 12 – 13, 2008
Action Items (see list at end numbered in red, e.g., (1), (2), etc.):
Planning Group Members (see list at end):
Conference Call Discussion:
In opening remarks, Rich Scheffe indicated that as a result of the last conference call (12/18/07) the agenda has been revised; this needs discussion. He encouraged everyone to regularly review the wiki-site which is routinely being update and contains the latest proposals for the agenda, supporting documentation, and invited participants. He, also, reminded the participants that the block of rooms for the selected hotel was only available until Friday (1/11/08) and that after that data independent reservations would have to be made. The air quality data summit workshop is a multi-faceted effort in which everyone should share information and ideas.
Rich noted that the initial agenda had been expanded. We are dealing with fragmented data systems and need to be concerned with (1) how well integrated they are, (2) what the best use of resources is, (3) how to meet needs of the community, (4) related efforts of DataFed, GEOSS, etc, (5) bringing information together with human resources, and (6) identifying actions that are implementable, operational, and sustainable. The focus should be on the IT side of the world. As a result, the agenda has been moved toward the use of additional breakout sessions, including four specific topics. However, the goal is not to focus on those specific topics and how to do better technical assessments. Rather, the workshop is about data and movement of data, not scientific components. A certain linkage should be maintained throughout the meeting. The first morning of data system and processing center presentations sets the stage for the rest of the workshop breakout sessions. To facilitate this make-up of the workshop, Rich will contact each person listed on the agenda (1).
Bret Schichtel indicated that the WRAP decision support system is unique for bringing information together for SIPS, and suggested that it should be added to the data processing center discussion. It is different from VIEWS and is a good example for the business case studies to be considered in Breakout Sessions A1 – D1 (2). However, it was noted that this decision support system may be too specific. It was suggested that the diagram for the WRAP decision support system should be placed on the wiki-site since it provides a good framework for Breakout Session A1 (3). Louis Sweeny volunteered to create similar diagrams for Breakout Groups B1, C1, and D1 (4). These diagrams might be overlain and common connections found for consideration by breakout groups.
Rich indicated that he expected that the co-chairs for the breakout groups would determine what they want out of the group; they should work with Rich and Louis (5). There was a general consensus that participants are comfortable with the layout of the agenda (6), but there is a challenge in how to make the sessions useful. In general, the first day of the workshop identifies challenges or needs and the second day finds opportunities, directed solutions and actions (7).
Louis Sweeny suggested that discussions should be kept at a high level so that they will be more generally applicable; stay out of the “weeds”. We should recap at the beginning of the breakout groups to identify additional topics and should identify endpoint and data that are needed. Purposeful samples are needed (8).
Mike Gilroy introduced the issue of multiple IT security issues which result in problems of sharing data. This should be included in the discussion since it is a major cause of the need for this summit meeting. A set of “access” principles to which organizations aspire is important to State/local agencies. This topic is logically part of Breakout Group A2 and should be included in the directions to breakout groups. Also as part of Breakout Group A2, data validation and updates should be included. There is a need for dialogue among people who are accessing data and how to extract more value out of data collected. Also the user should be able to know how current the data is. This could be a recommendation from the data summit. Louis volunteered to identify which group discusses (1) data synchronizing/notification and (2) dialogue with users (9).
There is a need to identify problems in Breakout Groups A1 – D1 for discussion by Breakout Groups A2 – C2. This makes it important to make the diagrams available for review. The goal is to have a clear partitioning of issues (10).
There was some confusion about the role of VERDI in the discussions. Rich indicated that the intent was to have modeling results on a platform/server consistent with data. Where are modeling results housed in EPA? There is a need to continue this discussion. Rich will follow-up with Donna Schwede and consider VERDI to be a placeholder; the “platform” could be something like CMAS (11).
Rudy Husar indicated that there should be a description of systems on the wiki (12). Betty Pun indicated that she would help with A1, and Terry Keating with C1. Time Dye and Mike Gilroy will talk about B1.
In response to a question about what will come out of the workshop, Rich indicated that the workshop will collect information that will be used as a catalyst for a community wide strategy that (1) affects AirQuest and (2) suggests how to bring together data from disparate sources. We need a document that can be referenced and provides guidelines on how to collect and use data. NASA points to community based principles. Core groups may put together a report/strategy.
Ben Domenico indicated that Unidata is doing complementary work within the atmospheric sciences academic community for agencies and the commercial world. They are working on data systems, large volumes of data, weather data, and on operating systems. The Unidata community needs real-time air quality data. Related information has been added to the wiki-site (13).
There is a need for recommendations sustaining VIEWS (17). Louis can do a much tighter job of defining the breakout groups (15). It should be noted that EPA is a customer and will make decisions based on findings of the summit (16). Louis will put “Blueprint for Exchange Network” on the wiki (14). The Next call will be the week of January 28 (18).
- Rich will contact each person on the agenda
- Include the WRAP data support system as an example in the case studies for breakouts A1 - D1
- Put WRAP data support system diagram on wiki; it provides a framework for A1
WRAP data system diagram is on the wiki.
- Louis volunteered to create similar diagrams for B1, C1, D1
- Co-Chairs should determine what they want out of their groups; they should work with Rich and Louis
- Attendees are comfortable with layout of agenda
- Consider day 1 as “challenges” and day 2 as “opportunities/directed solutions/actions”
- Louis suggests:
- Louis will identify which group discusses: (a) data synchronizing/notification and (b) dialogue with users
- Identify problems for discussion; what is relationship between breakout groups
- Rich is to follow up with Donna on a model server; Verdi is a placeholder; this could be CMAS
- Rudy: put a description of systems on wiki
Data system profiles have been prepared.
- Ben’s effort to but data distribution on wiki didn’t work; Stefan says that wiki is working now; there should be time to discuss Ben’s system.
- Louis will put “Blueprint for exchange network” on wiki
- Louis can do a much tighter job of defining breakouts groups
- Louis notes that EPA is a customer and will make decisions based on findings
- We need recommendations sustaining the attributes of VIEWS
- Next call the week of January 28