| Members | Representatives | UPC Staff | |
|---|---|---|---|
| John Merrill (Chair) | Harriet Barker (UCAR) | Sally Bates | |
| Robert Fox | David Carlson (UCAR/ATD) | Steve Chiswell | |
| Colleen Leary | Harry Edmon (U. Wash./ATAC) | Glenn Davis | |
| James Moore | Jack Fellows (UOP) | Ben Domenico | |
| Charles Murphy | David Fulker (UPC) | Jo Hansen | |
| Julie Winkler | Bernard Grant (NSF/ATM) | Linda Miller | |
|
|
"Fritz" Hasler (NASA) | Don Murray | |
| Richard Chinman (UCAR/IITA) | Clifford Jacobs (NSF/ATM) | Sandra Nilsson | |
| Jon Corbet (UCAR/ATD) | Mohan Ramamurthy (U. Ill./Users) | Russ Rew | |
| Mary Marlino (UCAR/PAGE) | Tim Spangler (UCAR/COMET) | Tom Yoksas | |
| Don Middleton (UCAR/SCD) | Karen Wiggins (NSF/ATM) | ||
| "Stick" Ware (UCAR/UNAVCO) | |||
| Paul White (UCAR/F&A) |
NOAA Report
Bob Fox spoke with Doug Sargeant and summarized his conversation as
follows:
Note: the deployments to the field reported above carefully did not use the word "operational" or "commissioned." These systems will be used in the routine functioning of the stations where they are located, but "commissioning" in the NWS jargon has a very specific meaning, and these systems will not be commissioned until many other programmatic milestone have been accomplished.
Discussion
* COMET will be bringing AWIPS into UCAR and will incorporate it
into its classroom.
* AWIPS ran into receiver problems and changed to C-band; they're now
using a new demodulator
NASA Report
Hasler gave a presentation on El Niño that employs TRIMM
satellite images (with the first active orbiting radar); the clip was
produced for showing in mini-theaters at places like the Smithsonian.
He also presented "Earth on line," an interactive model
that is Web-based. Copies of his slides were distributed at the
meeting.
NSF Report
Jacobs reported on the current state of NSF's FY99 budget request,
NSF's priorities and directions, the impending review of Unidata (by a
panel meeting in Boulder at the end of March), and on the new Knowledge
and Distributed Intelligence program that was just funded. With a total
of $65M to spend on KDI awards, NSF is planning to hold $15M to fund
proposals already submitted to NSF. An internal committee with
members from across NSF (Jacobs will be representing ATM) will decide
how to allocate the funds to the "extant" proposals. He is
hopeful that some funding for Unidata from this pool may be
possible. He also encouraged UCAR to submit a coordinated
proposal. Copies of Jacob's slides were distributed at the meeting.
Discussion
* There is a Research Fund that cross-cuts agencies and which
is broadly supported by Congress. NSF funding seems to be broadly
supported as well.
* FY99 budget request includes $78M for KDI; all KDI monies
must be committed each year. The short lead time on this year's KDI
program will strain NSF's review process. Since KDI awards can
be up to $1M, NSF expects to be inundated with proposals. NSF has
not decided on the review process, but Jacobs predicts that only 5% of
the proposals will be funded. All proposals must be submitted by
NSF's on-line system, which may swamp the system. Proposers
should submit earlier than the 8 May deadline to ensure that their
proposals make it through the system.
* Commercial entities may not apply for KDI funds.
Marlino summarized PAGE's activities, which included an intense month of focus-group meetings across the country. The preliminary findings suggest that the highest priority needs for the community are: (1) a Web-accessible clearing house of geoscience educational resources, (2) Web access to multimedia materials from the COMET modules, (3) workshops on pedagogy and technology, and (4) assistance with assessment and evaluation. Copies of Marlino's slides are in the notebook.
Discussion
* The relative roles of PAGE and Unidata were questioned.
Marlino noted that PAGE was committed to the Unidata model of sharing
resources. While Domenico is on loan to PAGE for the immediate
future, the programs are otherwise distinct;
* One challenge facing Unidata is the heterogeneity among campuses
and Marlino was questioned about PAGE's approach to this problem;
Marlino noted that the have/have-not situation in the PAGE community is
not equivalent to the Unidata situation (which requires participant
commitment and resources) since PAGE is dealing with Web-based
resources. Clearly, however, some campuses will need more help
than others in applying technology to the classroom.
* An interesting difference between PAGE and Unidata is that
campuses that "have" the technology still may not be able to apply it
in education. The PAGE challenge is to combine what we know
about learning with state-of-the-art science. The Users workshop
was a good example.
* UCAR's involvement in broad geoscience education was questioned;
Jacobs noted that UCAR's mission is to support atmospheric "and related"
research and education.
Fulker reported that Unidata and UNAVCO delayed submitting the SuomiNet proposal for MRI funds on the belief that the idea needed further clarification. There were indications that people needed to know more about the scientific value of the observations, which may be addressed by hosting a workshop this summer. Randolph "Stick" Ware, director of UNAVCO, mentioned that the need for real-time data in the solid earth community was limited to a few disciplines at present, and therefore he needed more input on direction from his community.
Unidata and UNAVCO intend to pursue the resolution of current issues and submit for MRI funds next year.
Discussion
* Although some MRI funds would be used by Unidata and UNAVCO for the
administration of SuomiNet during the period of the award, Jacobs
questioned how the network would be sustained in the period after the
duration of the MRI grant.
* Chiswell asked for recommendations as to the level of support that
universities should be expected to provide toward cost sharing for such
a proposal in light of the recognition that smaller universities should
not be overlooked.
* Harry Edmond pointed out that institutions such as U. Washington had
several continually operating GPS receivers already, and so the
possibility of adding the meteorological packages to the existing
network for precipitable water estimates rather than purchasing
complete systems was desirable from their point of view.
* Fulker was questioned whether SuomiNet represented a new
paradigm for Unidata--as a data generator. Fulker noted that UNAVCO is
already creating these data and would be doing the processing;
Unidata's role is to disseminate those data, as is done with data from
FSL. Unidata would also be the broker of the funds and would
manage the data-distribution topology.
* The proposal might better present SuomiNet as a "proof of
concept" (the concept being that these data will improve forecasting)
with a limited term. This would sidestep issues of instrument
maintenance over time and would represent valid research. The
proposal would need to reference the simulation work that indicates
these data would enhance forecasting, however.
* Unidata is interested in SuomiNet as a test of IDD capabilities
and to further Unidata's goal of involving other disciplines.
* When questioned why Unidata was investigating GPS data instead of
radar data, Fulker noted that the use of radar data (everyone wanting
data from a particular radar when weather in that area was interesting)
would require developing automatic rerouting capabilities and there are
no funds available for developing and testing these.
Resolution 1 (passed with one opposed):
The Policy Committee recommends that Unidata work with UNAVCO to submit
a proposal to NSF for MRI funding to start, operate, and distribute data
from a SuomiNet for a fixed period of time.
Resolution 2 (passed with one opposed and one abstaining):
The Policy Committee recommends that it be given time to review the
revised SuomiNet proposal prior to submittal.
Action 1:
UPC staff should pull together an annotated bibliography of the science
involved in the SuomiNet proposal and add links on the SuomiNet Web page
to current SuomiNet-like products.
Discussion
* Receivers may eventually be cheaper than even the SSEC prices.
* SSEC is receiving NOAAport data already, but has not compared the
NOAAport stream with FOS
* DIFAX availability will be an issue for the community; one suggestion
is for Unidata to organize the creation and dissemination of DIFAX-like
products by a university.
* If several universities install NOAAport receivers, then this
redundancy on the IDD will replicate Alden's 7X24 operational data
flows. Perhaps Unidata should consider applying for MRI funds to
fund equipment for 4-5 universities to capture NOAAport.
* NOAAport imagery is all remapped and may not be adequate for all
research purposes.
Action 2:
The Users Committee will discuss NOAAport issues at its next meeting.
Discussion
* The NWS is not interested in connecting directly to universities
since the current configuration for doing so would require running a
Sun workstation as an interface; in the future (about 18 months),
NEXRAD sites will have 4 direct ports each and connections will be
possible using open RPG .
* USWRP is interested in having access to NEXRAD base data; Unidata
may cooperate with them and with NCAR's RAP, which is incorporating radar
data into hydrological models.
* NCDC is archiving all the radar data.
* Current arrangement with NIDS vendors probably will not continue
beyond September, 1999.
Resolution 3 (passed unanimously):
The Policy Committee accepts the purpose and procedures drafted by
its subcommittee to create a Russell L. DeSouza Outstanding Participation
Award.
Action 3:
The UPC will write a letter to the DeSouza family asking permission
to use his name.
Action 4:
The UPC will hold discussions with UCAR management about the
possibility of using UCAR funds for a cash award.
Action 5:
Bates will contact the AMS about the possibility of their sponsoring
the Russell DeSouza award.
Action 6:
The final form of the award, which depends on the results of Actions
3-5, will be a topic on the next agenda.
Discussion
* The iterative approach is particularly powerful when learning a new
language.
* Java performance on GUIs is not an issue
* The implementation of most candidate applications should be capable
of being run by anyone in the community; more complex applications (3-D)
may need to wait for implementation in Java extensions.
* The same people who maintain the current system are also the developers
and so are well aware of user needs; however, UPC still needs explicit
interactions with users to evaluate the prototypes. Need to select
testers carefully.
* UPC may want to select applications with an eye toward KDI funds:
e.g., applications where there are problems of scales and structure or
involve the interplay between computation and different kinds of data,
* NSF review panel will be looking at the program as a whole, not just
the plans for the Java transition; reviewers may have data or support issues
and the UPC must be prepared to answer these. The reviewers are users
not developers.
* The future of Java was questioned. Object-oriented methodology
is useful in itself; once designed, the applications can be written in
any object-oriented language.
Resolution 4 (passed; one opposed):
The Policy Committee expresses its support for UPC participation leading
to a UCAR-wide KDI proposal, along the lines summarized in the white paper
presented by Fulker. The Policy Committee wishes to stress the importance
of including community participation.
Resolution 3 (passed unanimously):
The Policy Committee accepts the purpose and procedures drafted by
its subcommittee to create a Russell L. DeSouza Outstanding Participation
Award.
Resolution 4 (passed; one opposed):
The Policy Committee expresses its support for UPC participation leading
to a UCAR-wide KDI proposal, along the lines summarized in the white paper
presented by Fulker. The Policy Committee wishes to stress the importance
of including community participation.
Action 1:
UPC staff should pull together an annotated bibliography of the science
involved in the SuomiNet proposal and add links on the SuomiNet Web page
to current SuomiNet-like products.
Action 2:
The Users Committee will discuss NOAAport issues at its next meeting.
Action 3:
The UPC will write a letter to the DeSouza family asking permission
to use his name.
Action 4:
The UPC will hold discussions with UCAR management about the
possibility of using UCAR funds for a cash award.
Action 5:
Bates will contact the AMS about the possibility of their
sponsoring the Russell DeSouza award.
Action 6:
The final form of the award, which depends on the results of Actions
3-5, will be a topic on the next agenda.
This page was updated on .