firethorn
changeset 4281:f3e8908ce635
Presentation for ADASS 2019 BoF
author | Dave Morris <dmr@roe.ac.uk> |
---|---|
date | Wed Oct 09 16:53:55 2019 +0200 (16 months ago) |
parents | e99f391f91b4 |
children | 01988ccd1200 |
files | doc/presentations/dave/20190702/notes.txt doc/presentations/dave/20191009/MolinaroMorris_ADASSXXIX_BoF8.odp doc/presentations/dave/20191009/MolinaroMorris_ADASSXXIX_BoF8.pdf doc/presentations/dave/20191009/notes.txt |
line diff
1.1 --- a/doc/presentations/dave/20190702/notes.txt Tue Jul 02 07:46:37 2019 +0200 1.2 +++ b/doc/presentations/dave/20190702/notes.txt Wed Oct 09 16:53:55 2019 +0200 1.3 @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ 1.4 IVOA Astronomical Data Query Language 1.5 http://www.ivoa.net/documents/latest/ADQL.html 1.6 1.7 +VOTable Format Definition 1.8 +http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOTable/ 1.9 + 1.10 Registry Interfaces 1.11 http://www.ivoa.net/documents/RegistryInterface/20180723/ 1.12
2.1 Binary file doc/presentations/dave/20191009/MolinaroMorris_ADASSXXIX_BoF8.odp has changed
3.1 Binary file doc/presentations/dave/20191009/MolinaroMorris_ADASSXXIX_BoF8.pdf has changed
4.1 --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 4.2 +++ b/doc/presentations/dave/20191009/notes.txt Wed Oct 09 16:53:55 2019 +0200 4.3 @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ 4.4 +disclaimers in intro (from Marco) 4.5 +--------------------------------- 4.6 +- I'm DAL biased 4.7 + + and science platforms are a wider topic 4.8 +- I'm resource curation biased 4.9 + + though they form the basis to work upon: data driven science 4.10 + 4.11 +possible disclaimers from both 4.12 +------------------------------ 4.13 +- I am / we are not _the IVOA_ 4.14 + + I/we have been asked to give a VO/interoperability view 4.15 + + I/we will try to put here questions, not solutions 4.16 +- mention ESCAPE/EOSC attachment about interperability (WP4) and cloud (WP5) 4.17 + 4.18 +[Talk ~outline w/ comments] 4.19 + 4.20 +VO technologies within a science platform 4.21 +----------------------------------------- 4.22 +- what's good for: 4.23 + + not reinvent the wheel 4.24 + + provide data/service resources in an interoperable way 4.25 + + basic metadata richness needed to enable science portal operations 4.26 + + long term sustainability of the effort to build a (single/project dedicated) Science Platform 4.27 +- drawbacks: 4.28 + + implementation efforts 4.29 + + contributing to a global open standard community 4.30 + 4.31 +VO technologies to enable interoperations among science platforms 4.32 +----------------------------------------------------------------- 4.33 +- what's the goal 4.34 + + enable direct re-use of data/service/code/workflow resources among standalone SciPlats 4.35 + + continue working on the ecosystem idea sitting behind the IVOA vision 4.36 +- where are the hurdles: 4.37 + + interoperable _data_ resources 4.38 + + interoperable _code_ resources 4.39 + + moving them around in a realistic and reasonable way 4.40 +- what's there and what should be there: 4.41 + + data discovery and access open VO standards (upgrade them as needed) 4.42 + + interoperable AAI solutions (talk to GWS, there's work to be done there) 4.43 + + network transfer metadata characterization to enable multi SciPlats interoperations 4.44 + + code/workflow/container/... discovery and data-plug meta-description (registry matters) 4.45 + + IVOA has metadata standards for describing data, we don't have anything for describing code 4.46 + + There probably already are some standards for this, so we should find/evaluate and adopt them rather than invent new ones 4.47 + 4.48 +Addendum 4.49 +-------- 4.50 +FAIR return of science platforms 4.51 + + they can be poweerful 4.52 + + but have to be designed to be so (see all of the above) 4.53 + 4.54 +Quick assessment of FAIR in the IVOA, where are we now ? 4.55 + 4.56 +Findable 4.57 +- good for data 4.58 +- poor for code 4.59 +- we need new metadata to describe code and execution environments 4.60 + 4.61 +Accessible 4.62 +- good for data (publishing archive data) 4.63 +- poor for code 4.64 +- executable code will need more work on A&A 4.65 +- poor for data (publishing user results) 4.66 +- do we need public user space to make results accessible ? 4.67 + 4.68 +Interoperable 4.69 +- good for data 4.70 +- good for code ? 4.71 +- it works as long as we use standard data formats for software inputs 4.72 +and outputs 4.73 + 4.74 +Re-usable 4.75 +- good for code 4.76 +- best practice for code re-use is fairly well documented (GitHub etc.) 4.77 +- poor for data 4.78 +- do we need public user space to make results re-usable ? 4.79 + 4.80 + 4.81 +