The ADEC and ADEC White Paper
description
Transcript of The ADEC and ADEC White Paper
Outline What problem are we trying to solve? What do we need from the HUG? The ADCCC and ADEC Current VO Activities The ADEC White paper
Draft Concepts Capabilities Approach Organization
What is the problem we are trying to solve?
Astrophysics science goals cannot be attained without coordinated use of data from multiple sources. Decadal review VO recommendation
Virtual observatory activities are underway in the US and abroad.
What is NASA’s role? Individual institutions are involved, but
there is no systematic response.
HUG contributions
Advice What is the best approach? What are the key components?
Endorsement and advocacy As representatives of the community
indicate that this is important to do. As individual astronomers make it known
that this is something you want.
Background of the ADEC
ADCCC created in mid 90’s Ad hoc organization of NASA archives
with some outside representation Keep each other informed of issues Minimize duplication of effort Address ‘boundary’ issues
EUVE archive
Creation of ADEC
ADCCC formally recognized by NASA and reorganized as Astronomy Data Centers Executive Committee (Jan 2001).
Chair rotates each year One representative from each data
center. CDS representative and potentially
others from outside NASA.
Membership of the ADEC NED – Barry Madore (chair) ADS – Gunther Eichhorn CXC – Pepi Fabbiano IPAC - Andy Boden IRSA – Bruce Berriman GLAST – David Band HEASARC – Tom McGlynn (acting) LAMBDA – Gary Hinshaw MAST – Marc Postman NSSDC - Joe King SIRTF – Lisa Storrie-Lombardi HST - Paolo Padovani CDS - Francoise Genova
ADEC Activities Interface with journals
Standards for publishing data sets used in research
FITS technical working group Build upon FITS standards
Interoperability technical working group Establish interoperable systems within
NASA centers.
ITWG Charter Provide seamless (one stop shopping)
access to all the NASA astrophysics catalog and data services regardless of where the information is located. All services will be accessible via standard
protocols Access will be via the existing user interfaces Results will appear consistent with the interface
that initiated the request. Affiliation of the data to the original site will be
clearly stated.
Existing ADEC LinksToADC ADS CXC HEASARC IRSA MAST NED
Link fromADC Obs. Row-
Abstract IMPReSS-
ArchiveVizieR-Browse
IMPReSS-Archive
CatsEye-ObjectsName Resolver
ADS ADS-Catalogs
ADS-archive
ADS-archive ADS-archive ADS-archive
ADS-Objects
CXC* Obs.-Abstracts
Name Resolver
HEASARC* Browse-VizieR
BibServer-Refs
Browse-archive
SkyView-2MASS
Browse-EUVE QLS'View/Morph-DSS2
Name ResolverBrowse-Position serv.
IRSA OASIS-
VizieR1
OASIS-SkyViewOASIS-archive
OASIS-DSS
Name ResolverOASIS-objects
MAST* MAST-Catalogs
Obs/Target-Abstract
MAST-ROSATMAST-EUVE
Name Resolver
NED NED-IMPReSSNED-VizieR
Reference-Abstract
NED-Browse NED-2MASS/IRAS
NED-archiveNED-FIRST
*Provides Astrobrowse-style service with links to all astronomy position sensitive services
Color coded link types:
position user selected parameters
target name observation
Current Links
Mostly ad hoc bilateral agreements between institutions (or reverse engineering of existing links)
Easily broken by updates from either side.
Rarely provide systematic access to remote resources.
ITWG results
Mixed… Able to develop prototype interfaces, protocols
and user services Bibcode delivery to ADS What services are available at a given
region Data set verifier services
Limited success in implementing these services over all centers or using them in operational user interfaces.
Hard to do real work for free….
SAWG Presentation Results of ADEC and ITWG activities
discussed at Science Archive Working Group (SAWG) meeting in October 2002.
SAWG requested White Paper describing the resources and approach needed to build a NASA interoperable archive.
SAWG will review and recommend action by NASA HQ. Next SAWG meeting April 22-23 ADEC meeting on March 12
Status of White Paper Two different approaches suggested:
Build single unifying interface to integrate all archive systems Master Object Directory
Agree on protocols and build systems on top of them Continuation of ITWG approach but with
actual resources. Substantial overlap in content, but major
differences in emphasis.
Master Object Directory. All archives will process data received
and provide a list of objects detected and datasets involved in a standardized way.
Lists of objects will be combined into a Master Directory of objects.
Users can query against master directory to find data in any NASA archive.
Master directory schematic
Archive
Object extractorCatalog/Arch. I/F
Archive
Object extractorCatalog/Arch. I/F
Archive
Object extractorCatalog/Arch. I/F
Archive
Object extractorCatalog/Arch. I/F
MasterDirectory
Object Info Updates
MD Interface
Object query
Requests for data associated with target
User
Requested data
Comments Clearly defined deliverables and new
capabilities for user. Complex queries on objects possible as
local queries on Master Directory. Technical concerns:
Handling non-object oriented datasets Hierarchical and extended objects
‘Political’ concerns: Is this something within the purview of NASA
centers alone? Do we want to concentrate on a single ‘master’
interface?
Interoperability Layer Approach Build thin layer of agreed interfaces to
access data. Modify existing resources to access remote
data using new layer. Data models describe resources in common
framework. Use layer as foundation for new capabilities
(perhaps including object directory) Essentially implementing a three-tier
architecture in NASA archive systems.
Interoperability Layer Schematic
Archive Archive Archive Archive
Interoperability Layer Protocols
CorrelatorRegistry
Browse Starview OASIS New Interfaces
Comments Builds upon existing systems and
provides multiple portals to data. Less explicit coupling of data centers
and services Deliverables less well defined and
more diffuse. Provides more incremental changes
to systems rather than dramatic new capabilities.
Commonalities
Common interface layer Catalog and archive access Regions covered by observations
Data models Need to agree on some common
semantic concepts, e.g., object, image, spectra, … independent of how these are stored.
Cross-correlation
What does the community need?
Common access to data and catalogs Can’t require users to know all of the
different interfaces. Ability to combine data from different
sources. Data model descriptions of data
Implications for HEASARC Substantially enhanced capabilities
for joining data in Browse, SkyView, Astrobrowse and other services.
Access to HEASARC data resources through other data portals.
Better coordination of NSF-funded and NASA sponsored NVO activities.
Need to ensure that this does not incur long term liabilities.