TTA Tools: Friday, 11 am MT, 1 pm ET, 29 June 2018


CV-331/SO-280/GB-bsm, 331 Hub Audio 434-817-6286


  • Introduction (Dana)
  • High-level Feedback (All)
  • Open Questions (All)
  • AOB


Attending: DanaBalser, JeffKern, AnandCrossley, AmyMioduszewski, MarkClaussen, LorantSjouwerman, StephanWitz

  • Introduction. DanaBalser briefly summarized the committee charge.
  • High-level Feedback. Each committee member was given time to provide high-level feedback on the draft requirements document. That is, any questions or comments about the overall structure and scope. Any major issues.
    • LorantSjouwerman
      • What does it mean that the new tools need to have the same look and feel as the ALMA tools? We had some discussion about user interfaces versus the underlying structure and process. The point of view from DMS is not to have major changes in structure. DanaBalser will solicit greater clarity on this key requirement from LewisBall.
      • How do we proceed without knowing the goals from the SRDP project? The goals for SRDPs are being developed and JeffKern is a committee member who will be able to provide those details.
    • MarkClaussen
      • Concerns that software for the VLBA will not be implemented based on past experience. JeffKern was told that the VLBA was in scope for SRDPs; that is, this is a requirement.
      • What kind of requirements are we going to write? The goal is provide enough details such that this document can be handed over to DMS for implementation.
      • Concerns that the committee does not have sufficient expertise in the ALMA OT. We have two committee members that have used the ALMA OT (LorantSjouwerman and DanaBalser) and one that has knowledge of the underlying structure (JeffKern).
      • In regards to the key requirement that the new tools have he same look and feel as ALMA: does this include the proposal handling? There was some discussion about the importance of including proposal handling; there are fewer users. DanaBalser will ask LewisBall for more clarity here.
    • AnandCrossely
      • It is important to have historical continuity of data. That is, we need a mechanism to import old data or to keep the old tools/databases available.
      • We need to document the databases. This is particularly important when a one-off metric is requested and time is critical.
      • The user database is important for metrics and must be well maintained.
    • JeffKern
      • Enough information must be provided so that some users can skip phase 2; that is, users provide information in the proposal so that scheduling blocks can automatically be generated without user input.
      • Allow users to create a proposal without understanding the details of the hardware.
      • There should be a trigger for people to take action (e.g., data to be run through a pipeline).
      • We may need to anonymize the proposal in the future and therefore DMS needs to consider this when implementing the software. For example, removing the authors name from the review process.
    • AmyMioduszewski
      • Some confusion about the text describing the ALMA structure (e.g., GOUS, MOUS, etc.). Is this necessary? It was felt that some details about process were important, especially when we start to work though some of the Use Cases.
      • Concerns about a gap between releasing new software for proposal submission (phase 1) and observation preparation (phase 2). Users have had to input details twice (e.g, PST and OPT) for the last five years. If there is a significant gap in development then the new tools will not be very helpful. DanaBalser will inquire about the current plans.
    1. DanaBalser will ask LewisBall for more details about the ALMA requirement. What does "look and feel" mean? Does it include the proposal handling software?
    2. DanaBalser will confirm with LewisBall that it is a requirement that the VLBA is in scope vis-a-vis SRDPs.
    3. DanaBalser will ask LewisBall if the proposal handling part of the ALMA software is in scope vis-a-vis the key requirement that the new tools have the same look and feel as ALMA.
    4. DanaBalser will inquire about the current plans for developing new tools for observation preparation.
    5. AmyMioduszewski will read the requirements document and provide feedback at the next meeting.
    6. ToneyMinter and RyanLynch will read the requirements document (if they have not already done so) and provide feedback at the next meeting.

-- DanaBalser - 2018-06-26
Topic revision: r3 - 2018-06-29, DanaBalser
This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding NRAO Public Wiki? Send feedback