1 / 8

Closing discussion

Closing discussion. SAC. 1. standardisation promotes (re)use. So which standards are desired by this audience? (theoretical) scientific community data formats? 2. how do we find out what the scientific community wants?

jadon
Download Presentation

Closing discussion

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. Closing discussion SAC

  2. 1 • standardisation promotes (re)use. • So which standards are desired by • this audience? • (theoretical) scientific community • data formats? • 2. how do we find out what the scientific community wants? • 3. how do we get the scientific community to participate in this effort? • open discussion threads on news groups devoted to specific disciplines (cosmo-coffee?) • have discussion session in meetings devoted to specific discipline • urge scientists to come to IVOA interop meetings, or participate in IVOA in some other way. • 4. WHO is going to do this work: SAC? TIG? National project TIG contact? • need to identify group of interested scientists. • This meeting has opened up the community somewhat. • 5. how/who to create a cookbook

  3. 2 • - "The VO" does not exist. IVOA does, but IVOA "only" defines standards for interoperability. National VO projects exist, for some time. VO-like efforts exist.We should not assume someone is "on/in the VO" only when an IVOA standard is implemented.Especially theory services are too generic to all be standardised in all detail • So what defines, being "in the VO“, especially for theory. • follow the VO "patterns“ • online • remote filtering • service • scientifically interesting • well documented • ... • Who can help, “who is the VO”?

  4. next all suggestions form SAC members

  5. Herve • 1. We can publish 'theory in the VO' right now! [too optimistic?] • 2. HDF5 seems to become a 'default' standard but with some caveats (library).do we have to develop our own data exchange format as fits? • 3. strong (urgent) need of standardization of outputs (data format, data model) in some interconnected fields in micro-simulation (stellar evolution, population evolution, photoionisation modeling, etc.). Experts in the field have to work on this. • 4. urgent need for a cookbook on how to publish in the VO • 5. two classes of theoretical products/services?         - huge amount of data services (cutout, mock observation, rough analysis, quick look, etc.) should be installed close to the data. most of the large datasets (Tb or Pb) are produced by almost standalone codes (N-body, hydro, etc.) for 3+1D simulations         - 'quick' simulations codes could be implemented as 'on-the-fly' services and might be inserted in workflows (typical of micro-simultaions) • [of course the intersection is certainly not empty... but I'm under this impression from the talks we had these two days ] • 6. many concerns about:         - credits         - description of the physical assumption         - how long do we have to keep theoretical archives?

  6. Miguel • - How researchers can be involved in the VO? (it looks to be needed but at different than        technical level. It is related with point 3 by Herve: "Experts in the field must work on it", but        where? • - It is needed a VO "area" for users and small services provided by small scientific      oriented  groups? (science oriented audience) and how to      manage it? (IVOA level, Euro-VO level?) • - For microsimulations: Data format (FITS) or metadata "fomat" (VOTable + DM)?      [Maybe too technical at this moment] • For us, to discuss in the coffee-break:    - Which actions/suggestions can be propose to the audience here NOW?    - Must we inform about any preliminary road-map?

  7. Santi • 1) I think that we should try to support the publishing (on the WEB) of VO-like services/tools. This is a very good starting point for Theory in the VO. • 2) the need for standardization on the data and meta data. How to do this? via small expert groups? • 3) How to help scientists to publish their own data on VO? how to help them to build the database? cookbook? help desk? technical visits? • 4) rules for ownership and credits • 5) strategies in order to make the VO more attractive to scientists .

  8. Dave • 1. What strategies should be employed to encourage theorists to take the time and effort to work with the VO and to make their work VO compatible? • 2. Large scale simulations (e.g., Millennium) and very large single observing surveys (e.g., SDSS) have some aspects in common: internal consistency, uniformity, and size that prevents practical downloading of the entire dataset.  Should an effort be made to adapt existing tools and applications that are used for SDSS-like datasets to theory datasets instead of "reinventing" tools just for theory?

More Related