1 / 81

EPOS Status at M18: assessing the Preparatory Phase

EPOS Status at M18: assessing the Preparatory Phase. Advisory Board Meeting Rome, May 31 st 2012. Proposed Meeting Agenda. 10 : 30-11 :30 EPOS PP Achievements , Status of the PP, bottlenecks and reporting procedure (M. Cocco) 11:30-12:30 Questions and Discussion

benjamin-stewart
Download Presentation

EPOS Status at M18: assessing the Preparatory Phase

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EPOS Status at M18:assessing the Preparatory Phase Advisory Board Meeting Rome, May 31st 2012

  2. Proposed Meeting Agenda • 10:30-11:30 EPOS PP Achievements, Status of the PP, bottlenecksand reportingprocedure (M. Cocco) • 11:30-12:30 Questionsand Discussion • 12:30-13:00  Future Activities & Next Challenges (short presentation& discussion) • 13:00:13:30  The Advisory Board evaluation: Electronic form & procedure  (presentation of the document & discussion) 13:30 Lunch • 14:30-15:00 The Research Infrastructures Data base for EPOS: RIDE showingthe EPOS contents. • 15:00- 15:30 Free Discussion • 15:30-16:00 Planning the next actions to finalize the evaluation report

  3. New Meeting Agenda • 10:30-11:00 The Research Infrastructures Data base for EPOS: RIDE showing the EPOS contents. • 11:00-11:30 The Advisory Board evaluation: Electronic form & procedure  (presentation of the document & discussion) • 11:30-12:30 EPOS PP Achievements, Status of the PP, bottlenecks and reporting procedure (M. Cocco) • 12:30-13:00 Questions and Discussion 13:00 Lunch • 14:30-15:00 Future Activities & Next Challenges (short presentation & discussion) • 15:00- 15:30 Free Discussion • 15:30-16:00 Planning the next actions to finalize the evaluation report

  4. EPOS challenges Seismological Observatories & Research Infrastructures Volcano Observations Geological and Surface Dynamics data Geodetic data Other Geosciences data Analytical and Experimental Laboratories ICT & e-RI Facilities Satellite Information data

  5. EPOS challenges EPOS is one of the most complex and ambitious projects of all ESFRI initiatives! Seismological Observatories & Research Infrastructures Volcano Observations Geological and Surface Dynamics data Geodetic data Other Geosciences data Analytical and Experimental Laboratories ICT & e-RI Facilities Satellite Information data

  6. Why EPOS? • Integrationof the existing national and trans-national RISs • Interoperabilityand services to a broad community of users • Open access to a multidisciplinary research infrastructure • Progress in Science by providing prompt and continuous availability of high quality data and the means to process and interpret them • Data infrastructures and novel core services, which will contribute to information, dissemination, educationand training. • Implementationplans, which require strategic investment in research infrastructures at national and international levels. • Societalcontributions: hazard assessment and risk mitigation

  7. EPOS Framework M1-18

  8. EPOS gov. structure

  9. The EPOS PP governing structure ✔ • The Project Development Board (PDB) • The Inter-Activity Preparatory Council (IAPC) • Board of Governmental Representatives (BGR) • The Project Management Office • The Advisory Board • The Data Providers’ and Users’ Commission • The ICT Board  ✔  ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

  10. How EPOS works? WP7 EPOS ARCHITECTURE WP8 OUTREACH & DISSEMINATION

  11. EPOS Roadmap Technical & financial requirements Promotion & participation May 2012 July 2013 May 2014

  12. The EPOS PP objectives Management of the preparatory phase Legal & Governance models Financial work Technical work Strategic work Outreach & Dissemination

  13. Preliminary Achievements • We have involved the data providers and identified and partially involved users(our stakeholders categories I &II). • We have completed the first inventory of the RIs we are going to integrate in EPOS. The revision and the update of the database are in progress (> 230 questionnaires collected so far) • Most of monitoring infrastructures and existing facilities are operational. Data are already available and data centres exist. Several web-services are operational (see ORFEUS/EIDA for seismology). • We are approaching Governmental stakeholders, funding agencies and industry (categories III & IV). • We are working to design of the EPOS Core Services. • We are promoting a community building by structuring our community.

  14. Preliminary Achievements • We have officially involved EuroGeoSurveys in WG3. • We have involved national space agencies and ESA in WG8. • EPOS has established effective links to several European Projects (NERA, REAKT, SHARE, QUEST, TopoMod, TopoEurope, MEMoVolc, ....). • EPOS is a GEO participating institution and it is directly involved in the Supersites Task in the GEO Work Plan. • EPOS is involved in a bilateral transatlantic cooperation with US National Science Foundation and in particular with EarthScope. • EPOS is collaborating with other Global initiatives for Data Infrastructures and for hazard and risk (FDSN in GEO, GEM, ....). • EPOS is participating to EC e-science projects (EESI, EUDAT, ENVRI, COOPEUS). • EPOS supported the VERCE EC project on data massive applications.

  15. 2. Legal & Governance models WP2, WP3

  16. Summing up WP2/3/4

  17. #2 Legal & Governance modelsSteps for setting up a pan-European infrastructure: achieved Identification of the scientific and technical needs Mapping of the stakeholders and existing national infrastructures Choice of the most appropriate legal structure Tailoring the governance to the scientific and technical needs

  18. Choice of a legal structure

  19. Selection criteria for a legal structure

  20. ERIC legal structure The European Research Infrastructure Consortium results from the COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 723/2009 of 25 June 2009 on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC). Recognition as an International body to some regards (VAT, procurement, …). Another advantage of the ERIC is the flexibility of its management, as the regulation only requires that the statutes provide: - An assembly of members having full decision-making powers including the budget - A director or a board of directors as the executive body and legal representative of the ERIC To set-up an ERIC, there has to be at least three EU Member States

  21. ERIC membership Only States (EU Member States, Associate States, Third countries) can be members of an ERIC (i.e. governmental level) Research organizations cannot be members The work of the EPOS RI will be undertaken by research organizations, and may include organizations from non-ERIC-member States Core Services can be organised inside or outside the ERIC according to budgetary and practical considerations

  22. Simple EPOS ERIC model with external Core Services External advisory board (external experts in science, finance & management) EPOS ERIC General Assembly (GA) Executive Office General Director, Technical Director, Adm. Assistant Coordination Committee General Director, Technical Director, Chair and rep from SEB & TEB recommends • Scientific Expertise Board • Thematic experts • National consortia representatives • Technical Expertise Board • High levelengineers Contract for services coordination Discussion • Core Services • Data description & QC • Data interoperability • … Provides data & services National networks & RIs; Organisations and companies; Data Centers

  23. EPOS-ERIC: A more practical model

  24. Timeline for setting up EPOS-ERIC (1/2)

  25. Timeline for setting up EPOS ERIC (2/2)

  26. Conclusion Governance is not just about designing power and money flow, accountability… Governance is crucial for realizing added scientific value. Structures must be designed according to the scientific needs. This is an iterative process of fine tuning and needs input from scientists as well as legal experts.

  27. #2 Legal & Governance modelsdeliverables, bottlenecks & problems Deliverables: D2.1, D2.2, D3.1 Milestones: MS9 (MS2.1), MS21 (MS5.3) Bottlenecks: appointment of the Board of Governmental representatives Problems: countries’ response to EPOS depends on the different governmental preparedness, interests, & national competition Solution: we have delayed the appointment and fixed the first meeting at M24 + Draft EPOS Design Report

  28. 3. Financial work WP4

  29. Costs for construction, operation and decommissioning, indications on project financing • The overall EPOS RIstotalvalue (17 RIs are missing for the calculation) reaches a bit more than 290 millioneuros (290.357.340 €).

  30. Ifwe focus on the results per EPOS partner, UiB (Norway) has the biggesttotalvalue on average per infrastructure (slightlyabove 20 millioneuros per RI) - a numberwhichislargelypulled by NORSAR - whereas IG ASCR has the smallesttotalvalue per RI in average: 389 thousandeuros.

  31. Ifwe look at the totalvalue per country (sum of the totalvalue of all the RIsbelonging to an EPOS partner), the ranking ismodified. INGV (Italy) thuscomes first with a totalvalue of 63.45 millioneuros, followed by UiB for Norway (60.95 millioneuros) and CSIC for Spain (45.32 millioneuros).

  32. The overallRIstotalvalueisobviouslymuchhigher in seismology (142 millions) asthis discipline hasdeclared more RIsthan the others. The analytical and experimentallaboratoriesarrive in second position (43 millions). Again, the Geology and surfacedynamicsRIs account for the smallestamount (1.9 million).

  33. Impact on finances Three levels of funding: 1. Head Quarters • Costs of the HQs = 250 000 < > 400 000 (including 3 FTEs + annual running cost of the office) • Two Options • A) majority contribution by the hosting Member State • B) common funding, proportional to …? 2. Core Services • Costs of the Core Services = still to be defined !! • Funding model : in cash / in kind contributions 3. National networks and RIs • Funding conditions to give a RI the EPOS label (i.e. secured national fundingapprox. 5 years)? • …and otherscientific and technicalrequirements

  34. #3 Financial workdeliverables, bottlenecks & problems Deliverables: D4.1 Milestones: MS17 (MS4.1) Bottlenecks: appointment of the Board of Governmental representatives Problems: No roundtable discussion yet with governments & funding agencies Solution: we have delayed the milestone and fixed the first meeting at M24

  35. 5. Strategic work WP5 (WP7)

  36. WP5: Strategy • To build the community, we have to: • Identify the capabilities of the data provider and needs of the user community; • Coordinate and implement each national effort; • Evaluate gaps in the solid Earth community landscape and define the optimal path forward, and; • Strengthen ties with similar European and Global projects. “WP5 analyzes the landscape and designs a path towards long-term sustainability for the EPOS infrastructure.” This complex project with many partners spanning many interests requires a strong strategy!

  37. WP5: What is achieved? • National Efforts: RI identification + Roadmap • RIs provided technical, legal + financial description • National + regional consortia created • National promotion of EPOS on Roadmap • Progress summary provided to national initiatives • RI -> Working groups • Active Working Groups that span the solid Earth monitoring community set up within WP6 • Identification of Data Provider and User Community (in cooperation with WP6 and WP8) • Identification the existing gaps in the distributed reseach infrastructures contributing to EPOS • Crucial for IT framework (WG7) • Coordination with similar initiatives (in cooperation with WP8) • ENVRI partnership with other ESFRI projects • Parallel goals with NERA, REAKT, GEM, etc. • Global collaboration with GEO • COOPEUS: Bilateral collaboration with US • Links with training programs QUEST, TOPOMOD

  38. WP5: Coordination of other initiatives(in cooperation with WP8) • Formal involvement in GEO(SS) • Coordination role for the Supersite Initiative • Cooperation with EarthScope (COOPEUS) • Regional Federation for Data Infrastructures • Joint participation to EC e-science projects: EESI, EUDAT, ENVRI, COOPEUS, • Coordination of projects: VERCE, etc. • Participation to the Global Data Infrastructure initiative (G8+05, GRDI2020) • Successful proposition of EPOS use cases for data infrastructures

  39. WP5: What is planned? In preparation for the construction phase: • Definition of the socio-economic added value of EPOS • Promotion of trans-national access and mobility across the EPOS Research Infrastructures • Establishment of pan-European data infrastructures, acting as centres of excellence for the solid Earth community • Design of the next generation of Research Infrastructures

  40. WP7: EPOS Architecture & implementation plan Therefore WP7 will take care of: The integration of main outcomes from the legal work (WP2), governance (WP3) and the financial plan (WP4), • Following the strategic EPOS roadmap envisioned in WP5 (strategy); • According to the technical work done in WP6. “WP7 will aim for a robust implementation plan for the construction of an effective architecture for EPOS.” The Preparatory Phase will bring the project to a level of maturity required to implement the EPOS construction

  41. WP7: What is planned? • Promoting and coordinating (with WP6) the design of the EPOS Data infrastructures and Core Services • Involving different stakeholders and capacity building • Designing and approving the EPOS architecture • Contributing to defining the socio-economic impact of RIs • Meeting with the ICT Board

  42. #5 STRATEGIC WORKdeliverables, bottlenecks & problems Deliverables: D5.1, D5.2, (D8.1) Milestones: MS19,MS20, MS21, MS37, MS38, MS42 Bottlenecks: appointment of the Board of Governmental representatives Strategy to contact core group of users Risk management plan Need to update the Science plan Solutions: meeting at M24, use of e-forms & surveys (ICT tools), Risk Management ready for M22 (summer 2012)

  43. 4. Technical work WP6

  44. Work Package 6: Tasks • Task 1 Interoperability of national research infra- structures and requirements analysisGFZ , ORFEUS, CNRS, TUBITAK, NERC(BGS), UU • Task 2Integrationof EPOS data providers: access to Data Centresand technical facilitiesNERC, ORFEUS, CNRS, GFZ, INGV, NOA • Task 3 IT standardization and e-infrastructureimplementation: EPOS Core ServicesORFEUS, NERC(BGS), GFZ, CNRS, INGV, IG ASCR • Task 4 Development and implementation of an EPOS e-infrastructure prototypeGFZ, ORFEUS, CNRS, NERC(BGS), IG ASCR

  45. WP6 - What has been achieved so far? • Establishmentof 8 technical Working Groups (WGs) • Technical survey: data from 240 European RIs • Screening and sorting of the survey results into 8 WGs • Initial review and analysis of the survey results • EPOS ftp-server for quick access to documents • CouchDBfor web-based RIDEinventory data base (RIDE – Research Infrastructure Descriptive Database for EPOS) • “use cases” for the EPOS database describe user needs(geo-scientist, tourist, emergency response, architect, student, policy maker) • STRAWMAN architecture to form a basis for the development of a more complex EPOS architectural model • Core Services: discussion paper on EPOS core services

  46. EPOS PP WGs • WG1 Seismological Observatories and RIs • WG2 Volcano Observations • WG3 Geological and Surface Dynamics Data • WG4 Geodetic Data • WG5 Other Geoscience Data • WG6 Analytical and Experimental Laboratories • WG7 ICT and e-IR Facilities • WG8 Satellite Information Data

  47. Working Group 1: Seismological Observatories & Research Infrastructures Core group (7), WG members (47) from 24 countries Resources: RI overview, user feedback, project/provider coordination (from ORFEUS & EMSC organisations) • Integrating/coordination developments: • E-infrastructure planning [NERA, VERCE, SHARE, …] • Distributed archives and data access [EIDA, NERA, ORFEUS/EMSC, …] • Mobile off-shore and on-shore deployments [AlpArray, …] • Science plan (step one: white paper on-/off shore experiments) • Workshops/meetings (examples): • Series of IT development coordination workshops (~ 2/3 months) • Global challenges for seismological data analysis May 25-30, 2012. Erice • Observatory coordination meeting Nov 12-14, 2012. Istanbul • Sessions and discussions at EGU and ESC meetings

  48. Volcano Observations Working Group (WG 2) European community: ~ 20 observatories; ~ 70 research institutions; 23 RIs surveyed WG2 Objectives: • To optimize the best architecture for the multidisciplinary distributed Research Infrastructure among the observatories; • To guarantee the technical interoperability of the distributed Research Infrastructures; • To guarantee the adoption of common standards and practices for the implementation phase; • To facilitate the access to data centres and to the use of modelling and processing tools. WG2 Tasks: 1. Integrated infrastructure of European Volcano Observatories:to identify the roadmap (steps, initiatives for the promotion, design, etc.) to create the infrastructure. 2. Definition and role of the WG2 stakeholders:to identify the stakeholders in the domain of volcanological data (National Research Organizations, funding agencies, data providers, data users, …); guidelines for stakeholder interactions; possible stakeholder contacts and commitments; etc. 3. Volcanological DB and relationship with WP7:This Task is aimed at contributing to the implementation of the EPOS Core Service. 4. Data Policy:This task is complementary to the previous one and would give the guidelines for the data policy of volcanological products (i.e., data types, data availability, type of access, etc.).

  49. Working group 3 – Geological Data • Baseline information • OneGeology Europe: bedrock geologyü • Now – 1:1M, in most countries better (1:250K – 1:25K), and diverse geoscientific maps • EuroGeoSurveys (EGS) plan to move to a complete European coverage with a minimum best resolution at 1:250K for all countries • To create key layers – for EPOS research layers may include active faults, detailed geology of infrastructure projects and observatories • Other layers through EGS focused on EU incentives (soils, groundwater, raw materials etc.) • Other baseline data relevant for geoscientific assessmentstopography (DEM), point databases (e.g. geochemical & age analyses, drill hole locations) • Geological metadata (an ideas portal) • EU wide geological projects such as TopoEurope • Interface georeferenced metadata from archivesdrill-core storages, sample archives, collections • Interface to IGSN (International GeoSample Number) • Physical infrastructure database = Collection of information about major geoscientific infrastructure that is of general interest for the EPOS community but not easily integrated in EPOS (e.g. drill rigs)

  50. Working Group 4 - GNSS data and other geodetic data • Main questions being addressed: • Types of data (GNSS or also others; permanent, monument, rate acquisition)? • Involvement of commercial partners? • Centralized or seamless storage? Data preservation! • Metadata handling. • Data provider or also solution provider? • Development of Tools (e.g., time-series computation)? • Cooperation with other European Projects (EUREF, E-GVAP, EUVN, BKG-Real Time, etc.

More Related