[Moims-dai] Notes from telecon 20160426

David Giaretta david at giaretta.org
Tue May 3 08:42:37 UTC 2016


Hi Don

I think the intention was that the ICP _is_ the actual project, but the
document focusses on a part of that project - perhaps one could regard the
capture of Additional Information as a sub-project. In other words if the
"real" project was not creating information then there would be no need to
create Additional Information". To call that activity a separate project
seems misleading to me because it would hide the intimate relationship
between the activities.
Would it be clearer if we had a separate name for the creation of Additional
Information e.g. "ICP - Additional Information Creation Activities"?

You wrote "my project is a proposal to fly an instrument on a spacecraft to
address some science question, I'm not going to think about it as an
"information Creation Project" - I guess part of the aim must be to remind
people that they are creating information that may be re-used - and they
must capture Additional Information to enable that to happen.

You wrote " I think the document needs to clearly identify the actual stages
of a real project, and then to discuss the information creation aspects of
each stage." We decided to put that specific information in the  Annexes,
but there is quite a bit of work to do on them.

Regards

..David

-----Original Message-----
From: moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
[mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of D or C Sawyer
Sent: 02 May 2016 20:29
To: MOIMS DAI List <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: Donald & Carolann Sawyer <Sawyer at acm.org>
Subject: Re: [Moims-dai] Notes from telecon 20160426

All,

As one begins to read the document, clearly the Information Creation Project
is not the same as the actual project.  It is about the need to create and
capture information in association with some other project.  If my project
is a proposal to fly an instrument on a spacecraft to address some science
question, I'm not going to think about it as an "information Creation
Project". I could be convinced that in association with my project, I need
to envision an 'Information Creation" parallel activity. However when the
stages of the ICP are called out, it appears they are now the same as the
actual project.  I find this very confusing. I think the document needs to
clearly identify the actual stages of a real project, and then to discuss
the information creation aspects of each stage.  I think this is what is
intended, but it is not how it currently reads, in my opinion.

cheers-
Don



On Apr 28, 2016, at 7:05 PM, D or C Sawyer <Sawyer at acm.org> wrote:

> All,
> 
> I've reviewed the latest draft through section 2 and have inserted a few
edits that I think make it more understandable.  See what you think.
However my main comment, which I've inserted into this version (see below),
is about the relationship of an actual project to an ICP.  The inserted
comment is as follows:
> 
> I belive it is not clear as to the relationahip between the ICP and the
actual project. They may be almost the same entity when the objecitve of the
project is to generate information, but otherwise I believe the relationship
of the ICP stages to the actual project needs to be discussed. In fact, most
projects in which new information is the primary objective would most likely
refer to their project in terms of the questions they want to answer or some
results to be achieved and not in terms of the information to be preserved.
I believe clarifying this, for the stages, is critical to (wide) adoption
and understanding. For example, is the flying of an instrument on a
spacecraft the same as the Operation stage?  The spacecraft operation has a
lot more going on than just the gathering of information, processing, and
analysis.
> 
> I'm not sure how I would try to address this. I need to think about it
some more, but perhaps others will have some ideas unless you think my
concerns is not warranted.
> 
> cheers-
> Don
> 
> 
> <6NNxN-M-0x6-ILF-20160423DMS.docx>
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 26, 2016, at 12:05 PM, David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org> wrote:
> 
>> Notes of CCSDS DAI telecon 20160426
>> 
>> Present
>> .       David Giaretta
>> .       Mike Kearney
>> .       Claire Caillet
>> .       Terry Longstreth
>> .       John Garrett
>> .       Bob Downs (for a few minutes at the start of the meeting)
>> 
>> 
>> ACTIONS
>> ACTION JGG will set up Webex for next week - DONE - JGG has sent out an
email about this
>> 
>> ACTION DG to report to Mario about wiki - say we use system used before
rather than CCSDS wiki
>> 
>> ACTION DG: Thank Vint Cerf    
>> 
>> ACTION: ALL: for next meeting: Review current draft and suggest specific
wording, both in the normative parts and also the non-normative annexes.
>> 
>> ACTION: ALL: figure 1-1 - is the update helpful?
>> 
>> ACTION: ALL: Think about a diagram which might illustrate a "Vision for
the Future" (see notes from last week) and suggest further areas of work.
>> 
>> ACTION : Claire: send pointer to DEDSL software
>> 
>> ACTION: JGG and CNES: to provide completion dates for various stages of
DEDSL XML Schema book so far
>> 
>> ACTION: DG to ask Mario/Nestor about Green Book
>> 
>> ACTION DG send info on DMP workshop - DONE - details and registration at
-https://indico.cern.ch/event/520120/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moims-dai mailing list
>> Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
>> http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai
> 


_______________________________________________
Moims-dai mailing list
Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai





More information about the MOIMS-DAI mailing list