[Moims-dai] Notes from telecon 20160426

Tue May 3 13:29:39 UTC 2016

All,

I believe the crux of the problem, as I see it, is the overloading of the term ‘project’.  I believe it should only be used for the actual project and for the generic form of the project as defined in the document.  This would allow a new reader to relate their view of a project to the generic project consisting of 4 stages described at a high level and then mapped to more specific project instance in annexes.  To avoid confusion the various types of data and additional information that needs to be gathered at each stage should not be referred to as a ‘project’.  If there is a need to refer to this total set of data and information as a single entity, I believe is should be given a different name.

Cheers-
Don

On May 3, 2016, at 8:08 AM, D or C Sawyer <Sawyer at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi David,
> 
> 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.
> 
> cheers-
> Don
> 
> 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.
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moims-dai mailing list
>> Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
>> http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai
> 