The NSF Advisory Committee on Cyberinfrastructure

1. The NSF Advisory Committee on Cyberinfrastructure Kelvin K. Droegemeier (kkd@ou.edu) School of Meteorology and Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms University of Oklahoma

2. Charge • Evaluate the current PACI programs • Recommend new areas of emphasis for the CISE Directorate • Recommend an Implementation Plan to Enact Recommended Changes

3. The History of Planning at NSF CSE research elsewhere in NSF Support for an array of small, medium, and large CISE basic research projects 1995 CISE Directorate Current REPORT Computational Science init.; Expanded equip. program. Hayes Report Provision of advanced scientific computing 5 Supercomputer Centers, NSFnet, PACI: NCSA & NPACI 1984 Terascale Computing Initiatives Lax ->Curtis/Bardon Reports 1993 BRP:“Desktop to Teraflop”

4. Cyberinfrastructure? • “Traditional” infrastructure infrastructure is required for an industrial economy. “Cyberinfrastructure” is required for an information economy. • “Cyberinfrastructure” refers to an infrastructure based upon computer, information and communication technology that is required for discovery, dissemination, and preservation of knowledge • High-end computers • Fast, adaptable networks • Software tools and applications • Data repositories • Collaboration tools • Education and training

5. Cyberinfrastructure

6. Knowledge Frontiers • Several recent projects provide a glimpse of cyberinfrastructure

7. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation Remote Users Instrumented Structures and Sites High-Performance Network(s) Laboratory Equipment Field Equipment Curated Data Repository Leading Edge Computation Laboratory Equipment Remote Users Global Connections

8. Information Sources • Community-wide web survey • Widely publicized • >700 responses • Quantitative comparisons with the Hayes Report • Oral public testimony (3 sessions) • 62 participants selected from: research scientists and engineers; computer and computational scientists; center directors; agency and corporate leaders; system administrators; educators; students and young scientists; technicians and consultants • Emphasis given to traditionally underrepresented groups and the physically challenged • Written transcripts and A/V materials assembled • Dozens of prior reports; unsolicited emails/calls • 250 pages of written critique from 60 reviewers • Hundreds of hours of deliberation and discussion among Panel members

9. Major Recommendations • The NSF should take the lead in charting a national course for cyber infrastructure – an Advanced Cyberinfrastructure Initiative (ACI) to create, deploy, and apply CI in ways that radically empower all scientific and engineering research and allied education • Must be a large, long-term concerted effort ($1B new dollars), not a linear extension of existing activities • Must be carefully organized and managed • Human capital should be considered a co-equal with traditional physical infrastructure • High-end resources available to the US academic research community should be second to none (doesn’t neglect low end or mid-sized resources – MREFC inadequate) • Physical infrastructure must be maintained for the long haul; NSF can’t keep thinking of resources like PACI as research or as an experiment that frequently is re-competed • Must fill the emerging need for a new IT professional • Give emphasis to underrepresented groups, the physically challenged, and “remote” users (digital divide)

10. A $1B Investment of New Funds

11. Fundamental and Applied Research to Advance CI • 30 Projects at $2M/year (average) • Single investigators and teams (e.g., SRB) • Topics • Human-computer interactions • Data base systems • Networks • Parallel computing • Architectures • Security • Reliability • Interoperability • IP

12. A $1B Investment of New Funds

13. Application of IT to Domain Science and Engineering Research • 50 Projects at $2M/year (average) • Long-term (5 years) • Single investigators and teams • Domain-specific scientists working with computer and computational scientists, mathematicians, technologists • Similar in concept to current ITR

14. A $1B Investment of New Funds

15. Acquisition and Development of CI and Applications • 20 Software Development Projects at $5M/year (average) • Develop production software, commercialize, maintain, upgrade • 10 CI Software Centers ($10M/year average) • Focus on specific community-wide issues, e.g., • Grid computing • Compilers • Run time systems • Visualization • Programming environments • Parallel file systems • Human-computer interfaces

16. A $1B Investment of New Funds

17. Provisioning of Resources • 5 high-end general-purpose computational centers ($75M each, or 2x current level per center) • 75 data repositories (average of $2M/year) • Mostly disciplinary but interoperable • 5 data technology development centers ($3M/year each) • 10 discipline-specific teams for meta data standards, formats, tools at $2M/year each • Increase digital libraries from $10M to $30M/year for $1-3M/annual projects • $60M/year for high-speed backbones • 5 application service centers at $2M/year each for non-computational applications, cluster computing, etc

18. Cyberinfrastructure Diversity •Capability not just capacity: technology, policy, tools. • Still need some center-based leading- edge,super computers. • On-demand supercomputing,not just batch.

19. Is the Pyramid Still Valid? • Most feel that it is, though broadening needs to occur below the peak • Especially strong sentiment from PACI User Advisory Committees • Some argue for a single, extremely powerful “cycle shop,” with other funding directed toward campuses for the purchase of local machines • It’s clear that increasing emphasis must be placed on data • Acquisition (sensing) • Generation (numerical simulations) • Cataloging (meta data) • Analysis/processing (mining) • Storage and stewardship (including legacy and traditionally non-digital information) • Interoperability (technical and among disciplines)

20. Recommended Organizational Structure Within the NSF • An ACI Program Office (APO), managed in a matrix fashion overlaid on existing NSF structure, with a highly placed, credible leader will be charged with • Serving as a national ACI coordinator • Managing the ACI budget/priorities • Linking ACI activities among directorates and funding them; the ACPO does not fund investigators or projects directly, but funds directorates, each of which develops its own initiatives • CISE takes a lead role in infrastructure and applications – identifies common needs among directorates • ACPO director reports to a steering committee of ADs, chaired by the CISE AD • Workshop held May 14-15 + AG session on May 16 to discuss management models broadly defined

21. http://www.si.umich.edu/cyberrequest

22. Recommended Future of PACI within the ACI • Two-year extension of current PACI program through 2004 • Until 2007 (10 years from start of program), PACI’s and PSC should be assured of stable funding to provide high-end resources and associated operations • Important to retain skilled PACI staff and successful collaborations – don’t want a mass exodus! • 2004 or 2005: ACI funding begins • Separate peer-reviewed enabling and application infrastructure projects + EOT • PACI’s can compete for all aspects of the larger ACI funding

23. Current Status at NSF • Solicitation for new Extensible Terascale Facilities Partners (proposals were due 9 June; panel on 26-27 June) • Funds connection and integration • Archival repositories • Digital libraries • Computational resources • Sensor networks • PACI transition period (March ’03 – September ’04) • 1-year extension of Cooperative Agreements • Maintain technology thrusts • Support resource partners + encourage participation in ETF program • Increase support for Domain-Specific Cybertools via FY04 ITR focus area; reduce funding through PACI • Fund terascale operations through September ‘04

24. Current Status at NSF • Many Directorates/Advisory Committees are in the process of planning for cyberinfrastructure

25. Current Status at NSF

26. Current Status at NSF • Within the Geosciences Directorate… • Efforts underway within each division • Atmospheric Sciences (ATM) • Ocean Sciences (OCE) • Earth Sciences (EAR) • Approach in ATM – as you begin your own planning • Open letter to the community (completed) • Regional “focus group” meetings to obtain broad input on • State of the art • Key issues of broad relevance • Recommendations to NSF for funding and implementation/management • Tentative locations: Washington, DC; Atlanta, GA; Champaign, IL; Boulder, CO; Seattle, WA; San Diego, CA • Final report to be submitted to GEO AD

27. Current Status at NSF • Cyberinfrastructure initiative likely will be more than traditional “priority area” efforts (e.g., Nano, Biocomplexity, Math, ITR) • Hopefully will be sustained – CI is a very different animal • We all have an opportunity to shape its direction • Your workshop is extremely important and timely • A couple of suggestions… • Be sure to communicate with and think about other disciplines • Be sure to participate in the “management models” sessions or give input via the web • Working document on May workshop is in preparation • 23 June 2003 via Access Grid (3 pm EDT) (coordinated with Global Grid Forum)

28. http://www.si.umich.edu/cyber