Minutes of SHUG Executive Committee Meeting of March 18, 2004
Present members (9):
- Paul Butler
- Nancy Ross
- Takeshi Egami
- Kim Tait
- Joanna Krueger
- Paul Sokol
- Lynn Walker
- Angus Wilkinson
- David Bowman
Approval of minutes from Feb. 5th and 25th (if available)
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
- EFAC meeting 4/14 – 4/16/04
Letter from Ian S. Anderson reads, “As chair of the SNS HFIR User Group (SHUG), you have see the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) project has evolved from design concepts into steel and concrete structures that will soon support instruments and their beams lines. As the Project moves closer to completion, the SNS also needs to evolve the advisory committee structure into a form more suitable for an operating scientific facility. With that goal in mind, I invite you, or your SHUG designee, to participate, as an observer, at future meetings of the Experimental Facilities Advisory committee (EFAC). EFAC meets semiannually and its next meeting is scheduled for April 14-16, 2004, in Oak Ridge.”
NEW BUSINESS
- INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PLAN
What are some of the issues, frustrations and/or requirements that we as facility users have with respect to our data. How it is shared between the facility and our home institutions? Who has access to it. Who, in fact, does it belong to? What type of IT infrastructure would we like to see implemented? Etc.
The following reply was formed from our discussions:
The SHUG executive committee has come to a consensus on several issues with respect to Information Technology Plans that we would like to see implemented at SNS/HFIR. Following is a list of key issues and our comments:
I. Access to Computers and Networks on-site
Users will need both on-site computer terminals, as well as relatively easy access to the network, i.e. to plug laptops to Ethernet. These hardware needs will be both for access to the outside (email, website, etc.,) as well as to data and data manipulation tools.
II. Access to Data and Data Analysis Tools
At a minimum, access to both refined and raw data collected at the SNS or HFIR should be made IMMEDIATELY available both inside and outside of any firewall structure. Similarly, the executables (preferably for multiple platforms) for all data analysis tools need to be readily available. Both the data and the analysis tools should be accessible both for download or remote use from either outside the lab (home institutions and on the road - i.e. not IP or "dongle" restricted) and from within the lab (on site hotel, informal discussion areas, instrument areas). Current and accurate instrument parameter files, background files and so on also need to be available.
III. Data Analysis; Portability
We are supportive of efforts to build a centralized data analysis tools library. As many of the currently available analysis tools are "home grown, establishing a carefully documented library of their capabilities will be important. Also, there are issues of portability of data from one analysis program to another. We need to make sure that the output of the instrument, in its reduced corrected form, can be written to as wide a list of program inputs as is possible. A small comprehensive 'writing program' that will interconvert as many different formats into as many others as possible may need to be developed.
IV. Off-site Instrument access
Secure, remote access to the instrument controls, as much as possible without the potential of damaging the instrument or any on-site personnel, will be particularly desirable to users.
V. Data ownership
Although the executive committee acknowledges that ultimately any data collected at user facilities is not proprietary and must involve some level of public ownership, the intellectual property of the scientist must also be protected. A policy should be established that at the very least, allows for a certain amount of time to elapse before the data is made public and that ensures that the original scientist is acknowledged or contacted in someway if the data is to be used. We acknowledge that determining the timeframe may be difficult as some types of experiments lend themselves to immediate publication while others do not. Security of the data prior to it being made public is definitely a concern and should be designed to protect intellectual property within the framework of established data ownership policy guidelines. A suggestion would be to review any policies already established by other facilities and programs.
VI. Collaborative tools
Incorporation of collaborative tools, such as electronic notebooks, within the IT framework at SNS and HFIR is encouraged and should be made available to users who wish to users. Their use however, should not be required. Again, security, particularly security to prevent unauthorized access to data recorded with these tools, should be a high priority.
- STRUCTURAL REFINEMENT OF THE SHUG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Is it agreed that refinement of the current structure is needed?
If so, what would be the most effective model?
permanent user co–ordinator/manager
longer term and shorter turn–over (2/year)
appoint a non–voting historian
–combination of the above or alternate idea altogether
SHUG USERS LIST
Should we ask for a mechanism to be implemented whereby all users who submit a proposal to HFIR or SNS automatically added to the user's list? Just those whose proposals are accepted? Just those who intentionally check a box on the proposal stating specifically that they want to be included? Or offer some kind of mechanism that requires extra effort on the part of the user to join so that we know that they really want to be involved.
NEXT MEETING DATA – 4/22 OR 4/29 OR 5/13?
Next meeting will be 5/20
- NEXT MEETING AGENDA –EFAC OR STRUCTURE OR ACNS OR ?
