1 / 5

Proposal for a PDS Mission Interface Working Group

Proposal for a PDS Mission Interface Working Group. Edward Guinness / Susie Slavney Washington University Presented to PDS Management Council April 4, 2008. Background. Current interface model Each mission is assigned a lead node Individual nodes work independently with instrument teams

cblakemore
Download Presentation

Proposal for a PDS Mission Interface Working Group

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. Proposal for a PDSMission Interface Working Group Edward Guinness / Susie Slavney Washington University Presented to PDS Management Council April 4, 2008

  2. Background • Current interface model • Each mission is assigned a lead node • Individual nodes work independently with instrument teams • Interactions between nodes is informal • Data and Archive Working Group (DAWG) meetings are not always the best forum for nodes to work on detailed or internal issues • DAWG meetings involve mission personnel and are often run by the mission • It is sometimes difficult for the lead node to be aware of the status and progress of work at other participating nodes • Interactions currently done informally would benefit from having a more structured Mission Interface Working Group

  3. Working Group Benefits • Enable PDS to present a consistent view of its standards and procedures to data providers • Coordinate archive development and operations (i.e., data delivery phase of missions) activities that require multi-node participation • E.g. Use consistent set of keywords in labels and coordinate keyword values that apply to multiple instruments (mission name and associated IDs) • Keep the Engineering Node informed of deliveries and other archive events • Provide a forum to discuss archiving issues internally • The working group would complement and not replace the DAWG meetings

  4. Scope • Topics for missions in planning or archive design phase • Local data dictionary development • Standard values for ID and name class keywords (data set, volume, instrument, instrument host) • Peer reviews • End to end archive delivery tests • Interactions with EN to prepare for deliveries (catalog files, resource links, release objects) • Topics for missions actively delivering data (operations phase) • Preparations for each delivery • Release announcements • Availability of data online and through search tools

  5. Working Group Operations • Membership • One or more representatives from each node involved with a mission who is well-informed and able to report on the status of work being done for a given mission • Associated EN data engineers • Suggest that WG be chaired by PDS Operations Manager, with the mission lead node representative leading the discussion for each mission • Meetings • Held once a month, about a week before monthly reports are due to ensure that fever charts are consistent and up-to-date • Each mission with issues to discuss would be included on the agenda, otherwise a status would be given • Mission specific issues should be submitted to the agenda with enough advance notice to give the group time to prepare • Suggest that PDS try this WG approach as an experiment for a 6 to 12 month trial period to see if the WG provides a benefit

More Related