Phone Meeting 2006-11-21 15:30 UT

Participants: KlausBanse, VadimBurwitz, MalcolmCurrie, BiancaGarilli, PrebenGrosbol, DanielPonz, KlausReinsch, BillCotton, DougTody

Agenda and minutes

1. General information
   • A two page summary of the ADASS BoF 2.1 was submitted to the proceedings by DT.
   • MalcolmCurrie was welcomed as new member of the Network
2. Wide review of requirements
   • Deadlines and audience
     • Unfortunately, PG had not jet contacted ADASS and VO to get permission to submit the call for a wide, Internet review through their e-mail lists. He promised to do this early next week (see action).
     • PG will circulate a draft of the call on the fase e-mail next week (see action).
     • With a likely face-to-face meeting in Feb. 2007, it was agreed to have a deadline of the Internet review in the end of Jan. 2007. Just leaving time enough to make a summary before a final discussion at the face-to-face meeting.
3. Next Face-to-face meeting
   • Time and location
     • Only 6 persons had voted on the polling page but of those a majority of 66% (i.e. 4 votes) preferred Canary Islands in the week of Feb. 12-16. The ESO internal review is in the end of this week so that current target for our next face-to-face is Canary Islands, Feb. 12-13, 2007 with the next option in weeks of Feb.16 or Mar.5. PG will contact NicolaCaon to verify if this is possible (see action).
   • Main agenda points
     • Final discussion of requirements
       • We should have a final discussion on the comments received through the Internet review in order to prepare a final version 1.0 of the document. Depending on the number of comments, this may take 2-3 hours.
     • Initiate an openSomething umbrella organization for our work
       • Last summer DT proposed to create an openSomething as a keeper of documents and standards. Not much have happened since but it still an issues. This would take ~1 hour.
     • Discussion on framework interfaces possibly compared with existing interfaces for applications (e.g. IRAF, CASE, MIDAS, GIPSY, Starlink, ...)
       • We should deliver our interface specifications by the end of 2007. To that we must start to draw up the main parts of the interface now. It should be based on our prototype experience but also consider what we have learned from legacy systems. In preparation for this discussion, we should contact the main legacy systems and ask them to provide references to their interface specifications and possible/preferable a summary of the main design choices (i.e. 5-10 slides). BC volunteered to do this for Classic AIPS. PG to contact other groups (see action). The time estimate is 4 hours.
     • Proposal for implementation phase - detailed work plan
       • In preparation for an EU FP7 proposal, through OPTICON, for an implementation, we need a detailed work-plan by the summer 2007. Since such a project would required explicit commitments of man-power by the organizations involved, a well structures plan (down to a level of 1 man-year efforts) will be required. A first discussion of such a plan should be done and would take around 3 hours.
4. Proto-types
   • Reports on proto-type work
     • BG reported on the Milan-Marseille prototype. They had finished the Python consol, basic messaging and were working on transfer of data structures. They expect to be able to present their preliminary work on the interface specifications at our next face-to-face meeting in Feb. 2007.
     • DT mentioned that he currently was working on the VOClient and other NVO matters but expected to look on a openRTE prototype by the end of the year.
     • DP asked if was possible to look on some of the code. BG mentioned that that was possible and had been described in an e-mail late summer. PG said that we could consider a shared code repository later (e.g. using subversion) but it may be too early now.
5. Actions
   • Status of open actions (see ActionList)
   • Summary of new actions (see below)
6. Time for next phone meeting
   • Suggestion: 2006-12-19 15:30 UT (16:30 CET)
7. Any other business
   • DP called for more prototyping efforts. PG fully supported this but mentioned that our OPTICON Network only supports meetings and not actual implementation work. Thus, all prototypes have to be on a voluntary basis. PG expressed great appreciation of the teams now doing prototypes as their efforts are of high importance for the final specifications.

Please add what I forgot and correct my errors.

-- PrebenGrosbol - 20 Nov 2006
to top