Difference between revisions of "Talk:Integrated Global Dataset"

From Federation of Earth Science Information Partners
Line 40: Line 40:
 
:Hello Terrry, Andre, HTAP: This is a quick response to your request for comments on the possible followups to the Geneva HTAP meeting.
 
:Hello Terrry, Andre, HTAP: This is a quick response to your request for comments on the possible followups to the Geneva HTAP meeting.
 
   
 
   
:The goal of creating a robust observational database suitable for HTAP model evaluation seems still appropriate, timely and rewarding in the long run. However, creating such an integrated database should involve three equally important activities to make it suitable for model-data comparison:  
+
:The goal of creating a robust observational database suitable for HTAP model evaluation seems still appropriate, timely and rewarding in the long run. However, creating such an integrated database should involve three equally important activities to make it suitable for model-data comparison: (1) data collection from the providers, (2)further quality assurance and (3) integration. In other words, focus only on (1) would probably not yield the desired quality and robustness.             
:# data collection from the providers,  
 
:# further quality assurance and  
 
:# integration
 
 
:In other words, focus only on (1) would probably not yield the desired quality and robustness.             
 
 
   
 
   
 
:At the breakout session of the Integration Group (Chapter 6), we agreed that the IGACO framework for data integration is a good starting point for the HTAP. I particularly liked the fact that in IGACO, Quality Assurance is an explicit component of the framework. A version of the IGACO Framework adopted/annotated for HTAP is attached for illustration. At this time refrained from cluttering the slide with IT issues with data flow and processing. Hope this helps a bit.  [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 22:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 
:At the breakout session of the Integration Group (Chapter 6), we agreed that the IGACO framework for data integration is a good starting point for the HTAP. I particularly liked the fact that in IGACO, Quality Assurance is an explicit component of the framework. A version of the IGACO Framework adopted/annotated for HTAP is attached for illustration. At this time refrained from cluttering the slide with IT issues with data flow and processing. Hope this helps a bit.  [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 22:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 20:00, March 25, 2007

TKeating:TF HTAP: Seeking Advice on Funding for Geneva Follow-up

Dear TF HTAP Contributors, André and I have both been able to secure a small amount of funding (200K Euros and $200K, respectively) to invest in follow up efforts to the TFHTAP/WMO/GEO workshop in Geneva. We both need to make some quick decisions about how to spend these funds. I am writing to solicit your thoughts on what investments would be most useful in supporting the cooperative modeling and analysis under the TF HTAP?

One of the recommendations of the Geneva workshop was to develop a database (perhaps distributed) of observations (surface, aircraft, satellite, ...) suitable for evaluating models of intercontinental transport and hemispheric pollution. This database could also be part of a larger "model evaluation testbed" that would include protocols and tools for comparing models to observations.

We recognize that there are a number of completed or ongoing efforts that provide a piece of what is needed. The challenge that we are facing is identifying the most useful next steps. From a practical standpoint, we are not able to combine these funds and will need to fund our combined effort as two projects. We are both likely to need to award the funds through open competitions. André's funds are likely to be available in the summer and will need to be awarded before the end of this year. My funds will be available sometime after October 2007, hopefully!

We need to identify specific products that we would like to produce, and the various connections to other efforts that may need to be built into the projects. One initial division of effort may be to have Andre's funds focus on surface observations and to have my funds focus on satellite observations, with aircraft and other data fitting into either project where it is most appropriate. This division is suggested because there may be different needs associated with the different types of data and my impression that there may already be infrastructure for dealing with the different types of data that we can build on in Europe and North America respectively.

A quick reply with wise thoughts would be appreciated! (Not asking for much!) If you would like to discuss any of this by phone, please feel free to call. Thanks for your help, Terry, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

....RHusar:TF HTAP: Seeking Advice on Funding for Geneva Follow-up

Hello Terrry, Andre, HTAP: This is a quick response to your request for comments on the possible followups to the Geneva HTAP meeting.
The goal of creating a robust observational database suitable for HTAP model evaluation seems still appropriate, timely and rewarding in the long run. However, creating such an integrated database should involve three equally important activities to make it suitable for model-data comparison: (1) data collection from the providers, (2)further quality assurance and (3) integration. In other words, focus only on (1) would probably not yield the desired quality and robustness.
At the breakout session of the Integration Group (Chapter 6), we agreed that the IGACO framework for data integration is a good starting point for the HTAP. I particularly liked the fact that in IGACO, Quality Assurance is an explicit component of the framework. A version of the IGACO Framework adopted/annotated for HTAP is attached for illustration. At this time refrained from cluttering the slide with IT issues with data flow and processing. Hope this helps a bit. Rhusar 22:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)