Policy Committee Meeting Summary:
September 30 - October 1, 1997

NSF Headquarters, Arlington, VA

Participants

Members	Representatives	UPC Staff
John Merrill (Chair)	David Carlson (UCAR/ATD)	Sally Bates
Otis Brown	Harry Edmon (U.Wash/ATAC)	Steve Chiswell
Ken Crawford	David Fulker (UPC)	Glenn Davis
Robert Fox	Bernard Grant (NSF/ATM)	Ben Domenico
Colleen Leary	Clifford Jacobs (NSF/ATM)	Jo Hansen
James Moore	Mohan Ramamurthy (U. Ill./Users)	Linda Miller
Charles Murphy	Douglas Sargeant (NOAA)	Sandra Nilsson
Julie Winkler	Other
	Mary Glackin (NOAA)
	Paul Hershberg (NOAA)

Administrative Matters

• The summary of the May 1997 meeting was approved.
• The next meetings of the Policy Committee will be:
  February 5-6, 1998, Boulder, Colorado
  May 28-29, 1998, location to be determined.

Status Reports

Director's Report
Copies of Fulker's Director's Report and presentation were distributed at the meeting; a copy of Nilsson's budget report is in the notebook. Linda Miller reported on the status of the case-study effort; the Web-based versions are underutilized.

Discussion

• Unidata creates multiple "virtual" relay trees on the IDD to decrease latencies. This involves separating the large products into their own stream, which decreases the average latency of the small products since they are no longer are held up behind the large products). Large products are more likely to require retransmission during periods of poor network performance, and therefore tend to backlog other products behind them. When the feed is split into separate streams, the smaller products can get through even if the larger products, such as the MCIDAS satellite images, do not. Most routers employ a round robin sharing algorithm. Separate connections increase the allotted time for the LDM for each cycle through the table.
• There was considerable discussion on the UPC's transition to Java. The goal of machine independence was reiterated, but the shape of the new development effort--scheduling development and manage legacy software--remains poorly defined and somewhat problematical.
• ATD, like Unidata, is planning to transition to Java for many of the same reasons. Carlson suggested there may be synergies in the UPC and ATD efforts.
• Planning may require developing a business model and specifying who are the UPC's partners because UPC does not have the resources to tackle this problem alone.
• The underutilization of the case studies may be a result of their size--users need to have extensive disk space to hold the data and few institutions have that much free space.

Users Committee Report
Ramamurthy summarized the Unidata/COMET summer workshop. There were over 50 attendees, with 14 speakers and, although the Users Committee has not had its formal debriefing, the exit interviews indicate that it was a very successful workshop indeed. The attempt to mix research and education topics, however, was not altogether successful: attendees looking for in-depth instruction on satellite meteorology left dissatisfied.

In a separate report, Murphy summarized his proposal that the Users Committee form a working group to facilitate the assessment of users needs and desires in the UPC planning for the Java transition.

Discussion

• The Users Committee may want to consider selecting a topic for its next workshop fairly quickly in order to submit the topic as a possible ASP Colloquium. (The colloquia are set two years in advance.)
• There was discussion of using the PAGE needs-assessment focus groups as a mechanisms for obtaining input on community needs.
• Murphy's concept of a working group fits in with the domain-analysis process; working group members could test new software as well. There is still a need for broader input, however.

NOAA Report
Mary Glackin reported on the AWIPS implementation. She noted that COMET would not receive a NOAAport receiver until July 1998 at the earliest. The formal commissioning of NOAAport is now slated for 1998 with the weather service itself expecting to start depending on NOAAport sometime during the year. As part of the effort, NOAA is developing a method for handling communication between external users and the National Weather Service. The NOAAport stream will contain re-mapped satellite images and model data (grids, no graphics) as well as observations; the schedule for delivering larger grids (International Data Service) has not yet been determined. The NWS is currently working to merge radar with model data, so radar data will be part of the NOAAport stream. NWS is exploring mechanisms for making more radar data more widely available, which includes moving toward non-proprietary open-access systems. How quickly this can be achieved is unknown, but the current situation will change to some extent when the NIDS contract expires. Lightning data on NOAAport is the only restricted portion of the stream, but NOAA is reserving the right to restrict other data in the future.

Discussion

• The National Weather Service wants to open up discussion with the university community on the topic of data compression. Compression, however, poses some problems to some users; university users will want to sample areas of data, which can't be done on compressed data.
• One role Unidata might play is to sample the NOAAport stream for users with less powerful platforms.

NASA Report
NASA representative Hasler was unable to attend.

NSF Report
Jacobs reported on the current status of NSF's 1998 budget as it wends its way through the budgeting process. He noted that the Geosciences budget as submitted to Congress contains $34.37 M for KDI activities. He reported that he had received 12 proposals for equipment grants and funded 11 of them. He also reported on the Integrated Spatial Information Systems (ISIS), which has as its goal the achievement of full interoperability of geospatial information.

The Unidata proposal will be reviewed after the current NCAR review is completed. Since Unidata is already funded under the UCAR Cooperative Agreement, there will be no special "bridge" funding required to carry Unidata from the end of its current proposal in May until the start of the new UCAR Cooperative Agreement in October 1998.

Copies of his presentation were distributed at the meeting.

Discussion

• On ISIS, this is a very welcomed effort since, e.g., land-use information is necessary to understanding climatologies; there were questions whether the GIS community, which is much larger than the atmospheric sciences, was really interested in interoperability.
• NSF awarded four educational minigrants.

Unidata's Role in a NASA CAN Proposal

Fulker reported that Unidata has cooperated in the University of Rhode Island Distributed Ocean Data System's response to a NASA Cooperative Agreement Notice. A copy of Unidata's statement of work is in the notebook. From Unidata's perspective, the DODS work will allow Unidata to begin examining issues relating to retrospective data. The DODS effort also promises an extension of netCDF to allow links to URLs instead of filenames, which would be useful to Unidata case-study effort.

Discussion

• With the DODS server, one can envision making data available at various locations; location of data would be transparent to user. The limitation is Internet bandwidth. This is an avenue for developing access to archived data.

Java Transition

Steve Chiswell demonstrated Java-TRANS, a prototype Java-based tool he created for supplying users with GEMPAK products. Fulker explained that Chiswell's work is an example of one way to approach the problem of dealing with legacy software.

Unidata has not yet reached a point at which it has identified precisely how the transition to Java will be accomplished. The staff is learning about object-oriented design and how to use JAVA; pieces of the technology are evolving at different speeds; Unidata has limited resources and expertise; and the problem is highly complex. As a result, no products have been identified, no time lines have been established.

Discussion

• The magnitude of the task facing Unidata was acknowledged. There was concern expressed that identifying where to focus efforts and resources might not be achievable in a truly innovative fashion. (Current software is really almost 50 years old; new models are needed.) There is a clear need for visionaries, in computing science and in the academic Geosciences, to help guide Unidata's transition.
• Unidata cannot do this alone; there need to be contributions from the community. Building infrastructure (designing software solutions that apply to range of tools) won't excite participation; building prototype tools will. Vertically integrated tools will serve as "path-finders": they will help identify the key elements, will give something for community members to experiment with, and may promote contributions from others. There was a question whether there were people in the community with the requisite skills to contribute to the effort, although help may come from outside the Geosciences community in the way of various tools that can be adapted for Geosciences use.
• Identifying key layers (such as data compression or navigation) is as necessary as building integrated prototypes; UPC needs to do both.
• One possible start might be a tool for analyzing radar data, built in cooperation with ATD.
• Unidata is not alone; other people and groups are at a similar point. Need to combine resources and talents, but how do we entrain these others?
• While platform independence is the long-term goal, Unidata has considerable investment in its current software. This investment should not be simply thrown away.
• Visionaries alone are not enough: everyone needs to be involved in the design process since it is a community enterprise.

Sense of the Committee:

The committee agreed that UPC efforts toward Java need to include:

• a role for visionaries
• a role for "big thinking"
• vertical applications development on a rapid-prototyping cycle
• horizontal module development on software that will be applicable aross a suite of tools
• identifying other key dimensions

The committee also agreed that the transition will require a multifaceted approach and that there are uncertainties concerning the deployment of resources.

The Scope of IDD

Paul Hershberg, Principal Scientist in the Office of Meteorology outlined the need for cooperation between the NWS, the USWRP, and Unidata in an effort to distribute NCEP model data. A copy of the draft proposal for this is in the notebook. The data currently reside on an overloaded machine in NOAA's Information Center. Due to heavy demand, the NIC cannot meet the USWRP's requirements for timely access to these data. At the request of the USWRP implementation working group, representatives developed a plan to meet these data requirements through use of Unidata systems. The proposal involves passing the data to an Office of Systems Operations (OSO) server, expanding that OSO server from an FTP server to an LDM server, and configuring the OSO LDM server to inject the data into the IDD. Costs pose the limiting factor: this activity isn't in the NWS mission, so the NWS would need to contract out the work involved. Given the current NWS budget constraints, money for such a contract is not available.

Discussion

• The immediate problem of making the model data available might be solved more simply by asking a single Unidata site to obtain the data via FTP and then to inject the data into the IDD. A single point of access from the university community might substantially lower the demand on the NIC server. To ensure operation timeliness, however, the single source would need to have priority access, which implies a formal understanding with NOAA.
• University demands for data are growing faster than delivery systems. We cannot expect the NWS to provide more data to universities than it provides to its own forecast offices. While the need for a formal mechanism that provides university access is clear, it cannot be at NWS's expense.
• If this ends up costing Unidata money, it may become a small vs large school issue; what is the priority here, NIDS or model data?
• Perhaps the issue is being addressed at the wrong level; need to involve Steve Nelson and Rit Carbone.

Resolution 1 (passed unanimously):
The Policy Committee expresses its appreciation to NCEP for providing the opportunity to distribute data to the Unidata community.

Resolution 2 (passed unanimously):

A. The Unidata Program Center will coordinate with one or two IDD sites to have them obtain NCEP grids from the OSO servers and distribute the grids to the community via the IDD. Unidata participants will be informed when the grids are available via the IDD. Assessment of the impact of IDD distribution on the OSO server would be useful.

B. The Unidata Program Center should continue to work with NCEP and the USWRP to develop, maintain, and evolve a mechanism for distributing data via the IDD.

SuomiNet

Steve Chiswell summarized recent efforts toward developing SuomiNet--a proposed university-based network of high-accuracy GPS receivers. A copy of the vision document is in the notebook. Chiswell reported that a recent poll of the community indicated active interest by XX universities. If there is sufficient interest, a proposal will be submitted to NSF for funding the network.

Discussion

• To date, there's been no attempt to involve sites outside of the U.S.
• There may be a way to integrated data from geodetically monumented sites, but this has not been investigated.
• UNAVCO currently gathers GPS data but they are lacking the ancillary data (upper-air temperatures, pressure, ground temperature) to calculated precipitable water.
• Need to clearly articulate the science in order to excite interest; should also address issues of data latencies and data-sharing policies clearly and overtly. The requirements of NSF's Major Research Equipment grants program should be single driving force.

Unidata and NSF's KDI Initiative

The Unidata program is unique; it is also a knowledge network. It may be worthwhile trying to model the program. Fulker outlined some of the components of the model. Copies of his outline were distributed at the meeting.

Discussion

• By model, Fulker was describing a method to produce a business model with identified inputs and outputs.
• Process re-engineering principles are invoked when an entity is broken; is there really a need to apply this to Unidata? Will it really further understanding of Unidata or bring more money into the program? This effort may benefit the program, however, by identifying areas of needed improvement (e.g., data-flow optimization)
• A dynamic model may help explain how necessary it is to have an ethic of sharing data.
• Meteorology has been transformed over the past 10 years: there are new instruments, new software tools, a trend toward integrating teaching and research, explorations of electronic textbooks and lab manuals. Modeling Unidata might be a mechanism for clearly showing how Unidata has facilitated this change.
• Need to devise mechanisms for measuring success.
• Modeling the Unidata Program is a separate issue from the transition to Java. However, modeling the process of the transition may be enlightening and aid the the effort to measure success. It may also demonstrate the positives of Unidata's community orientation/organization.

Brainstorming on Unidata and the Evolving Atmospheric Sciences Undergraduate Curricula

Ben Domenico apprised the committee of the creation and status of UCAR's new PAGE program. Copies of the PAGE overview are in the notebook. Domenico noted that the locations of the focus groups have been established, with the first occurring in Boulder on Oct. 17.

Discussion

• A formal mechanism for sharing data and information gleaned in the focus groups is needed.
• Students may need to be involved in the focus-group efforts or in the broader Page effort.
• The ability to deliver technology to the classroom is a big issue on some campuses.
• Different pedagogies require different technologies; needs among universities and among faculty within a single university will diverse. Maybe PAGE might want to develop a matrix of university needs, including components such as restructuring the curriculum as well as technology issues.

Miscellaneous

Sally Bates reminded the committee that a program to recognize outstanding Unidata participants had been suggested by the Users Committee and had languished unaddressed by the Policy Committee.

Action 1:
A Policy Committee working group will be formed to address the Outstanding Participation Awards program. The working group's task is to draft an awards procedure before the next Policy Committee meeting. Working group members are: Mohan Ramamurthy, John Merrill, Ben Domenico, and Sally Bates.

---

Unidata Homepage

---

This page was Webified by Sally Bates.
Questions or comments can be sent to <sally@unidata.ucar.edu>.

This page was updated on .