[Moims-dai] Notes from telecon 20160426
D or C Sawyer
Sawyer at acm.org
Tue May 3 12:08:47 UTC 2016
I hadn’t seen your note below when I sent out my latest thoughts so I didn’t respond directly to your comments. However I think my latest note infers responses to your questions. If not adequate, we can discuss at the Webex a bit later today.
On May 3, 2016, at 4:42 AM, David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org> wrote:
> 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.
> -----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
> 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.
> On Apr 28, 2016, at 7:05 PM, D or C Sawyer <Sawyer at acm.org> wrote:
>> 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
>> 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.
>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 12:05 PM, David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org> wrote:
>>> Notes of CCSDS DAI telecon 20160426
>>> . David Giaretta
>>> . Mike Kearney
>>> . Claire Caillet
>>> . Terry Longstreth
>>> . John Garrett
>>> . Bob Downs (for a few minutes at the start of the meeting)
>>> 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
>>> Moims-dai mailing list
>>> Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
> Moims-dai mailing list
> Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
> Moims-dai mailing list
> Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
More information about the MOIMS-DAI