The 9th face-to-face meeting of the Network was held at ESO, Garching, Germany, July 17-18, 2008. The minutes of the meeting are give below.

Participants: MalcolmCurrie, PrebenGrosbol, LuigiPaioro, ChristianSurace, DougTody, BillCotton (video/partly)

Thursday, July 17, 2008; Room: A149

11:00-11:15 Welcome: General information, adoption of agenda

• PG gave a short introduction with logistic information. The main objective was to discuss the current draft of the design/interface document so that a full draft version can be ready for the end of July.
• The current state of the FP7 proposal was mentioned. It seems very likely that our Network also will be funded under OPTICON FP7 but possibly with a significantly reduced budget.

11:15-12:30 Summary of current draft document (DougTody)

• DT summarized the AURA workshop on Software in June. There were significant interest within AURA which also may consider standards for a common system for several of its new projects. It will be important to have a close contact with the AURA effort (to be provided through DT).
• The ASTRONET road-map report was briefly discussed. PG had submitted comments and asked to have a more explicit mentioning of the importance of software standards. The ASTRONET reply is not yet available.
• The general objectives for the draft design/interface document were considered by DT as an introduction to the detailed discussion to follow.

12:30-14:00 Lunch

14:00-14:30 General structure of document

• PG was concerned that the document was too technical and felt that also astronomers with software experience should be able to appreciate it and map it on to their own needs. It was decided to add a section on 'How to read it' to the introduction and possibly give some more practical Use Cases.
• BC (through video link from NRAO) asked on the implication by the documents presented as an IVOA Note. DT clarified that this was done to increase the visibility and did not imply that it would go through the IVOA standards process.

14:30-15:30 Discussion on Key Concepts

• There were a long discussion on Applications and Components. It was decided to clarify and simplify the presentation of Applications to avoid confusing the reader. Besides some minor issues, there were general agreement on the concepts section.

15:30-16:00 Coffee break

16:00-17:00 Discussion on Architecture Overview

• Although inclusion of legacy software is mentioned in the document, it was felt to be so important that it also should be considered in this section.
• The interface between presentation and application layers should be clarified. Further, the option for applications to implement the component interfaces and thereby be called as such may be explained more explicitly to illustrate the many facets of applications.

17:00-18:00 Discussion on Application Architecture

• The different ways to execute applications (e.g. host, single process, and distributed) were discussed extensively. Again here, it would be good to emphasize how legacy applications or systems can be integrated in to the concept. Also FORTRAN may be mentioned in this connection.

Friday, July 18, 2008; Room: A054

09:00-09:15 General information, summary of day one

• After a short summary of the first day, the discussions on the Application Architecture were continued from section 2.2.4 on Task Structure.

09:15-10:30 Discussion on Application Architecture (cont.)

• After some discussion on Package Manager and its functions, the discussion of the section was completed with general agreement.

10:30-11:00 Coffee break

11:00-12:00 Discussion on Framework Elements**

• The section was only partly written. DT detailed the intended content of the different sections.
• On package Structure, PG mentioned that it would be important to convey the feeling that the system should have a package structure which makes it easy to find and update them. A reference to standard Linux distribution would give an idea of the level aimed for although the explicit package form may differe.
• A new section on configuration and administration of a system based on the concepts outlined should be added.

12:00-12:30 Analysis of Special Use Cases

• The Use Cases and the content (to be added) were discussed. It was decided that at least 3 additional cases should be added, namely:
  • User Perspective: to describe how, at a more practical level, a user would interact with the system to do a simple task.
  • Legacy Code: to detail how one could add a legacy task to the system.
  • Virtual Observatory: to show the interface to VO.
• Two appendices are foreseen:
  • Legacy systems: showing how some generic legacy systems could be made available. This may include systems like IRAF, CPL, and AIPS to illustrate different options.
  • List of Interfaces: would just list (but not in detail) to total list of interfaces which need to be defined.

12:30-13:30 Lunch

13:30-15:00 Summary, actions, and conclusions

• There were general agreement on the current draft. A number of explicit comments will be incorporated and the main body of the text completed by the end of July. The objective is to make it available to our Network by the first week of August for general comments.
• The review procedure still have to be clarified. It may need to be more informal since the document hopefully will be shared by both AURA and OPTICON Network. It may be possible to upgrade our fase@eso.org mailing list so it can be used for general comments and discussions. The list of persons to be invited to give comments needs to be discussed.
• In order to complete the document in a draft form by end of July, the following assignments were made:
  • DT: finish draft text of main document, legacy interface to IRAF, appendix on list of interfaces
  • PG: scope, User Perspective, legacy interface to cpl
  • BC: legacy interface to AIPS
  • MC: legacy interface to StarLink
  • LP: SAMP, parameter sets
  • CS: update TWiki, pipeline Use case.

Please correct my errors and add what I missed.

-- PrebenGrosbol - 21 Jul 2008
to top