Seeking SC Feedback on Draft Technology Strategy

and Roadmap for EarthCube

Draft of 3 November 2015

The Technology and Architecture Committee (TAC)

Chairs: Yolanda Gil and Jay Pearlman

Presenter: Yolanda Gil

EarthCube 4-Month Interim Plan

• The deliverables of the 4-month interim period consist of two documents: a long-term strategic plan and an implementation plan, finalized by November 30, 2015. The strategic and implementation plans should include the EarthCube vision and goals, science and cyberinfrastructure drivers, and the process for the EarthCube community to make progress towards those goals, including:• a plan for how EarthCube Governance will discuss and evaluate the

form and function of a reference architecture for EarthCube; • determining gaps in geosciences capabilities and resources

(considering both EarthCube funded projects and externally supported resources); and • setting priorities for further development on a yearly cycle that can be

used by NSF to help support further EarthCube development.

Why Architecture• Analogy (thanks to Mohan Ramamurthy):

• Each technology component: a country with its own engineers and approaches

• Each scientist: a traveler who should get decent service

• Standards: facilitate connecting rail segments across countries, manufacturing, etc

• Architecture: blueprint of major hubs and high-speed lines, agreements to standards, coordination of schedules, etc.

• Existing data facilities and infrastructure: railroad infrastructure that was already there serving travelers and uses different standards and approaches

• Architecture goals: • Connect technology components so information exchange is

fluid• Make it very easy to add new functionality

• How: standards, agreements, strategyhttp://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Europe%20World/Resources/IUR%20map%20Europe.gif

As a Scientist You Should Want:

• Coverage of all possible destinations• All the tech capabilities you need

• Reasonable scheduling options• Easy to get things done with technology

• Reasonable travel times • Efficient processes

• Reasonable prices• Does not take too much of your time

• Standard rules• Uniform way to use technology

• Comfort• Advanced capabilities that make travel fun http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Europe%20World/Resources/High%20speed%20Europe%202010.jpg

As a Scientist You Should Want:

• Coverage of all possible destinations• All the tech capabilities you need

• Reasonable scheduling options• Easy to get things done with technology

• Reasonable travel times • Efficient processes

• Reasonable prices• Does not take too much of your time

• Usability• Uniform way to use technology

• Comfort• Advanced capabilities that make travel fun http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Europe%20World/Resources/High%20speed%20Europe%202010.jpg

You need to tell us:• What destinations are priorities?• What usability criteria are most

important?• What is comfortable travel?• What are reasonable travel times?• What rules are reasonable if you are

going to develop part of the infrastructure yourselves?

As TAC We Want to Give You:

• A framework to specify use cases• This is the functionality needed• This is how it should work• This is how it should connect to existing data

facilities and other existing pieces• This is how we want things to work

• A testbed to evaluate technology gaps• This capability is not where it needs to be• This capability is fine• We are missing this capability

• An architecture roadmap• That is a reasonable travel time• That standard will not work in practicehttp://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Europe%20World/Resources/High%20speed%20Europe%202010.jpg

• What destinations are priorities?• What usability criteria are most

important?• What is comfortable travel?• What are reasonable travel times?• What rules are reasonable if you are

going to develop part of the infrastructure yourselves?

TAC Working Groups

UseCases

GapAnalysis Architecture

TestbedStandards Semantic

Infrastructure

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CPSaE80bXBzo1Q8SSKHVUJv4osEZKo8_Ddv4a4fL-yA/edit?usp=sharing

A Proposal for a Use Cases Roadmap

Draft of 3 November 2015

The TAC Use Cases WG

Chairs: Lisa Kempler, Danie Kinkade, Karen Stocks

Presenter: Karen Stocks

Use Cases Roadmap

A Proposal for a Testbed Roadmap

Draft of 3 November 2015

The TAC Testbed WG

Chairs: Ken Keiser, Emily Law

Presenter: Ken Keiser

EarthCube Testbed Plans and Iterative Approach

ECITE Project

EarthCubeCommunity

OperationsECITE

ProjectEarthCube

Community

Design & BuildECITE

ProjectEarthCube

Community

Proof of Concept

Prototype

Validate

Design

Develop

I&T Platforms

I&T Cases

Users’ Guide

Best Practices

Catalog

Design

Req’ments

Recommend

EvaluationMethods

Integration Use Cases

Interop Use Cases

Use Cases

Evaluations

Reviews

Demonstrate

Community Engagement (Governance, Projects, End Users, TWG)Community Participation & Input (Integration prioritization, Evaluation/Compliance Criteria, Integration

Scenarios, Evaluation, Review)

Prototype Use Cases

Best Practices

Approach DescriptionThis Iterative Approach combines work performed up to this point by the EarthCube TAC Testbed Working Group effort, potential future EarthCube participation, and planned efforts by the recently funded EarthCube Integration and Test Environment (ECITE) Integrated Activities project. The ECITE project is implementing the functionality and infrastructure to facilitate the integration and interoperability evaluations of EarthCube projects. EarthCube should be defining the needed levels of integration and interoperability evaluation and providing guidance on the application of ECITE towards those objectives; to include the definition of use cases and methodologies that will demonstrate and exercise the scope of EarthCube integration and interoperability requirements.

The initial Proof of Concept phase will entail the use of (probably) a single use case in order to rapidly implement and demonstrate a prototype of the ECITE infrastructure and interfaces. Building from a successful Proof of Concept phase, the Design & Build phase will begin using additional use cases and employing EarthCube-defined evaluation methodologies in a more robustly designed and developed ECITE environment, and including the documentation of best practices to be used for evaluation of future technologies. The Operations phase will provide EarthCube with an operational ECITE environment to perform ongoing evaluations of future technologies and the results of funded projects, for determination of compliance with EarthCube-defined integration and interoperability objectives. Community engagement and participation is critical across all of these phases to insure that the EarthCube Testbed environment is addressing the major needs.

A Proposal for an Architecture Roadmap

Draft of 3 November 2015

The TAC Architecture WG

Chairs: Phil Chang, Basil Gomez, Emily Law, Mohan Ramamurthy,

Steve Richards, Ilya Zaslavsky

Presenter: Jay Pearlman

How do we get to a usable and adopted info system?• Engage the science and CI communities for

developing and adopting an infrastructure• Focus on sustainability, evolution, and metrics for

evaluating risks associated with its operation.• Base on current approaches – reuse, alter, if

necessary invent• Identify pilot activities to exercise and test the

architecture• Refine and support adoption process• Adapt architecture to changing technology and

science requirements.

Science Needs

Sustainability

Build upon existing systems

EC architectural principles EC science driver needs

Existing technical capabilities

Existing architectures

Operational SoS Framework

Existing research scenarios

Science enterprise

CI Community Resources and Capabilities

Science Community Needs and Methodologies

Architecture

Operational SoS

Framework

EarthCube capabilities

Domain system capabilities

Capabilities of individual researchers and teams; disruptive technologies

Matching user needs with capabilities, identifying gaps, promoting best practices

Promoting modularity and interoperability of

existing systems

Supporting innovation and

capacity building

Architecture implementa

tions

ArchitecturePrototype

Pilots for Specific

Scenarios

Testbed I&T Environment

Core capabilities

Core processes/mechanisms

Monitoring and metrics

From the system of systems architecture framework to architecture implementations: iterative development

contributions

feed

back

s

Strategic Direction

• The mission of the EarthCube Technology and Architecture Standing Committee is to oversee the technology and architecture development of EarthCube to assure that EarthCube infrastructure is community-driven, supports standards for interoperability, and incorporates advanced technologies to become a commonly used capability that supports scientists on their research efforts.

Requirements Testing Adoption

Scientists Play a Key Role

UseCases

Architecture

Testbed