Difference between revisions of "Talk:Data Summit Workspace"
From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | == -- | + | == Data Summit Table-- Tesh Rao 17 January 2008 (EST) == |
| − | I expanded the table a bit, but not too much. I mainly look at it as | + | I expanded the table a bit, but not too much. I mainly look at it as link, that definitely needs to be maintained from am day one to pm day one to day two. It can be polished a bit as needed. |
| − | link, that definitely needs to be maintained from am day one to pm day | ||
| − | one to day two. It can be polished a bit as needed. | ||
| − | This could be one of the items handed to the breakout sessions for | + | This could be one of the items handed to the breakout sessions for completion during its individual discussion. The (my kind of half-baked) idea it to use this to "tie" things together. Under each "business topic" category, the groups would identify which raw data systems and which data processing centers are most important via this table. Then, the group would discuss, theoretically, which of the chosen attributes are most important in summation when we begin talking about a "system of systems." {There may need to be more than one of those depending on application...which is what we want to discuss and best to streamline that :-) ). Those thought would go in the colored row at the bottom of each of the table subsections. Talk could even be focused on whether any data processing center that is existent and mature now can handle many of the attributes that we arrive at for each "business topic." Then the discussion can expand, as possible and do-able, to streamlining techniques across all the business topics. Beyond that, a few other points: |
| − | completion during its individual discussion. The (my kind of | ||
| − | half-baked) idea it to use this to "tie" things together. Under each | ||
| − | "business topic" category, the groups would identify which raw data | ||
| − | systems and which data processing centers are most important via this | ||
| − | table. Then, the group would discuss, theoretically, which of the | ||
| − | chosen attributes are most important in summation when we begin talking | ||
| − | about a "system of systems." {There may need to be more than one of | ||
| − | those depending on application...which is what we want to discuss and | ||
| − | best to streamline that :-) ). Those thought would go in the colored | ||
| − | row at the bottom of each of the table subsections. Talk could even be | ||
| − | focused on whether any data processing center that is existent and | ||
| − | mature now can handle many of the attributes that we arrive at for each | ||
| − | "business topic." Then the discussion can expand, as possible and | ||
| − | do-able, to streamlining techniques across all the business topics. Beyond that, a few other points: | ||
| − | * In the 8 minute presentations in the morning of the 1st day, on top of | + | * In the 8 minute presentations in the morning of the 1st day, on top of the items we gave to Lou Sweeny as topics for each speaker to cover, I would add something that describes the maturity of the system in question (as well as perceived user community). Only after today's RSIG meeting did I realize that it has advanced so far in terms of implementation (though the number of users is probably small in that case). Also covered should be issue of sustainability for each of the systems. If the presenters have examples/papers/reports/policy related work that has been done using their system (this wouldn't really apply to some of them like AQS), it would be good to identify those briefly. |
| − | the items we gave to Lou Sweeny as topics for each speaker to cover, I | + | * We are addressing 4 very broad "business topics"--and the ones chosen are good--but we should think about anything we are missing (as far as future importance for OAQPS) under the umbrella of topics we have. Climate Change, for example, comes to mind. |
| − | would add something that describes the maturity of the system in | + | * I am sure there will be discussion items that come up that aren't directly related to any of the structured discussion items, but may be important to the overall big picture. I would have the note-takers keep track of those in a "parking lot" list. |
| − | question (as well as perceived user community). Only after today's RSIG | + | * When Tsirigotis/Curran were here, we had a discussion about how a data analyst spends 80% of any given project on data assimilation, data reduction, and general data readying. Only 20% of his/her time is spent on actual visualization/interpretation. The idea as we think about approaching a "system of systems" is for being able to reduce the 80% number for a data analyst. One of Airquest's initial goals was to do this. This could be framed as a discussion item for the breakout sessions. Even though we have a proliferation of tools now for accessing (ambient) data now compared to say 6-7 years ago, this 80/20 split hasn't gone down a great deal. |
| − | meeting did I realize that it has advanced so far in terms of | + | * Again, after today's RSIG meeting, we need to manage time very effectively, otherwise we could get caught in a very narrow discussion of relatively few topics. Need the facilitator to keep track of time well. And, you have it on the agenda, but next steps should be clearly delineated both at the beginning of the first day and especially at the end of the second day. |
| − | implementation (though the number of users is probably small in that | + | * To me, this is a very needed discussion and it needs to be done efficiently and well. There just seems to be so much overlap between systems that exist now (AQ, RSIG, etc.) and funds seems to be used for duplicative items. I'll stop here for now. |
| − | case). Also covered should be issue of sustainability for each of the | ||
| − | systems. If the presenters have examples/papers/reports/policy related | ||
| − | work that has been done using their system (this wouldn't really apply | ||
| − | to some of them like AQS), it would be good to identify those briefly. | ||
| − | * We are addressing 4 very broad "business topics"--and the ones chosen | ||
| − | are good--but we should think about anything we are missing (as far as | ||
| − | future importance for OAQPS) under the umbrella of topics we have. | ||
| − | Climate Change, for example, comes to mind. | ||
| − | * I am sure there will be discussion items that come up that aren't | ||
| − | directly related to any of the structured discussion items, but may be | ||
| − | important to the overall big picture. I would have the note-takers keep | ||
| − | track of those in a "parking lot" list. | ||
| − | * When Tsirigotis/Curran were here, we had a discussion about how a data | ||
| − | analyst spends 80% of any given project on data assimilation, data | ||
| − | reduction, and general data readying. Only 20% of his/her time is spent | ||
| − | on actual visualization/interpretation. The idea as we think about | ||
| − | approaching a "system of systems" is for being able to reduce the 80% | ||
| − | number for a data analyst. One of Airquest's initial goals was to do | ||
| − | this. This could be framed as a discussion item for the breakout | ||
| − | sessions. Even though we have a proliferation of tools now for | ||
| − | accessing (ambient) data now compared to say 6-7 years ago, this 80/20 | ||
| − | split hasn't gone down a great deal. | ||
| − | |||
| − | * Again, after today's RSIG meeting, we need to manage time very | ||
| − | effectively, otherwise we could get caught in a very narrow discussion | ||
| − | of relatively few topics. Need the facilitator to keep track of time | ||
| − | well. And, you have it on the agenda, but next steps should be clearly | ||
| − | delineated both at the beginning of the first day and especially at the | ||
| − | end of the second day. | ||
| − | |||
| − | * To me, this is a very needed discussion and it needs to be done | ||
| − | efficiently and well. There just seems to be so much overlap between | ||
| − | systems that exist now (AQ, RSIG, etc.) and funds seems to be used for | ||
| − | duplicative items. I'll stop here for now. | ||
Revision as of 22:23, January 22, 2008
Data Summit Table-- Tesh Rao 17 January 2008 (EST)
I expanded the table a bit, but not too much. I mainly look at it as link, that definitely needs to be maintained from am day one to pm day one to day two. It can be polished a bit as needed.
This could be one of the items handed to the breakout sessions for completion during its individual discussion. The (my kind of half-baked) idea it to use this to "tie" things together. Under each "business topic" category, the groups would identify which raw data systems and which data processing centers are most important via this table. Then, the group would discuss, theoretically, which of the chosen attributes are most important in summation when we begin talking about a "system of systems." {There may need to be more than one of those depending on application...which is what we want to discuss and best to streamline that :-) ). Those thought would go in the colored row at the bottom of each of the table subsections. Talk could even be focused on whether any data processing center that is existent and mature now can handle many of the attributes that we arrive at for each "business topic." Then the discussion can expand, as possible and do-able, to streamlining techniques across all the business topics. Beyond that, a few other points:
- In the 8 minute presentations in the morning of the 1st day, on top of the items we gave to Lou Sweeny as topics for each speaker to cover, I would add something that describes the maturity of the system in question (as well as perceived user community). Only after today's RSIG meeting did I realize that it has advanced so far in terms of implementation (though the number of users is probably small in that case). Also covered should be issue of sustainability for each of the systems. If the presenters have examples/papers/reports/policy related work that has been done using their system (this wouldn't really apply to some of them like AQS), it would be good to identify those briefly.
- We are addressing 4 very broad "business topics"--and the ones chosen are good--but we should think about anything we are missing (as far as future importance for OAQPS) under the umbrella of topics we have. Climate Change, for example, comes to mind.
- I am sure there will be discussion items that come up that aren't directly related to any of the structured discussion items, but may be important to the overall big picture. I would have the note-takers keep track of those in a "parking lot" list.
- When Tsirigotis/Curran were here, we had a discussion about how a data analyst spends 80% of any given project on data assimilation, data reduction, and general data readying. Only 20% of his/her time is spent on actual visualization/interpretation. The idea as we think about approaching a "system of systems" is for being able to reduce the 80% number for a data analyst. One of Airquest's initial goals was to do this. This could be framed as a discussion item for the breakout sessions. Even though we have a proliferation of tools now for accessing (ambient) data now compared to say 6-7 years ago, this 80/20 split hasn't gone down a great deal.
- Again, after today's RSIG meeting, we need to manage time very effectively, otherwise we could get caught in a very narrow discussion of relatively few topics. Need the facilitator to keep track of time well. And, you have it on the agenda, but next steps should be clearly delineated both at the beginning of the first day and especially at the end of the second day.
- To me, this is a very needed discussion and it needs to be done efficiently and well. There just seems to be so much overlap between systems that exist now (AQ, RSIG, etc.) and funds seems to be used for duplicative items. I'll stop here for now.
