Introduction

This report summarizes the results of the Design Weeks period of Iteration 1 of Release 1.

Overview

This table shows the status of subsystem planning as of the end of the Design Weeks.

Key

For Task/Subtask List rows, format is Status Code: Iteration 1 tasks defined / Iteration 2 tasks defined.

Status
Code = Status Description
+ = Status is fully complete and realized
√ = Status is 'acceptable'; sufficient information exists to go forward
~ = Status is 'progressing'; more work is needed to be sufficient to go forward
O = Status is 'pending'; some work has been done but progress is not being made
X = Status is 'problematic'; work is significantly behind
( ) = Status is tentative (to be removed by end of week)

R1 = Release 1
I1 = Iteration 1
W1 = Week 1

Italicized participants are involved via prototype work.

Table: Status of Subsystem Planning

Issues and Notes

Overall-A. Interfaces/Dependencies

All subsystems need to declare their dependencies on other subsystems.

• Should add a subtask in each task list for this.
• When do we try to complete this within Iteration 1?

Overall-B. Enterprise Architect

We're agreed we're using Enterprise Architect. Mostly for resource reasons, our uptake of this is slow, which will start causing issues by LCO.

• What is status of Raytheon SOW to convert existing drawings?
• Can we hope to have guidance from Raytheon (or other) on setting up the EA content?
• Enterprise Architect application delayed due to steep learning curve and setup time

Overall-C. Task List Usage

Task lists are needed for the System Implementation activities, for central architecture team activities and development management (development environment) activities

Overall-D. Consolidation Architecture

The consolidation of the architecture will be delayed due to travel related absences.

COI-A. Staffing and Effort

• The number of tasks and topics is big
• For the number and importance of topics, the number of available design and development resources is substantially too little
• The MS Infrastructure and the DIF sub-awards need matching architect and developer resources to receive and iterate

COI-B. Scoping

Need to be sure to make the scope of tasks manageable. They are covering advanced technology and are partly open ended

COI-C. IdM Integration

No developer with IdM experience in sight to integrate IdM technologies.

• Will lag behind 2 iterations

CEI-A. Team Bandwidth

The ANL team is still coming up to speed, so require more internal consultation time to come fully up to speed on the technologies and plans.

• This issue should resolve itself in a short time; it just means CEI will get a bit of a slow start.

DM-A. Metadata

There are many open questions about what our metadata design results should look like and achieve, and heavy dependencies on COI.

• John wants to have an overarching metadata discussion to make sure we're all on the same page.
• Might need use cases for external and internal users.

DM-B. Resource Lifecycle Alignment

There is development on resource lifecycle management in COI Release 2.

• This may need to be aligned (schedule-wise) with the Release 1 resource activities in DM.

DM-C. Scientific Data Models

We have to have an internal model for our use, and support external formats used by the community.

• Need to have explicit discussion with requirements czars about what the real external format requirements are (precisely).
• John: not sure that internal model selection is as clearcut as it seems to be for Matt.

DM-D. Catalog Design Patterns

There is a question about whether the design patterns that we've considered 'required' for the catalogs (to support search) are sufficiently rich to enable necessary search and data download features.

• Existence of PyDAP solution is promising with regard to targeted interaction patterns.

DM-E. IRODS, SRM topics

These are potential(definite?) (probably competing) technologies for inclusion in the system.

• What are their intended applications?
• How definitive is their selection?

S&A-A. Staffing

We do not have an identified team to pursue S&A activities.

• We need to identify a suitable team as quickly as possible.
• In the short term, J&M will execute a 'best-effort-keep-up' strategy.

S&A-B. Instrument Prototype

Lindquist Consulting is identified as a prototype developer, but has not worked through all of the SOW; issues may arise.

• Is the scope of the notional project commensurate with needs/expectations?
• Is the existing S&A documentation sufficient to prototype to?
• How to align this with other work (see D below)?