Transcript ILC EDMS Selection Committee Progress Report Tom Markiewicz / SLAC 12 January 2006 GDE Executive Committee Weekly Meeting.

ILC
EDMS Selection Committee
Progress Report
Tom Markiewicz / SLAC
12 January 2006
GDE Executive Committee Weekly Meeting
Question posed to Exec Committee
@ Frascati that need answers
(Frascati slides appended to this presentation)
• Do you accept limited selection of EDMS products under
consideration?
– Team Center (DESY, FNAL) or CERN InDiCo, CDS, EDMS or
combination of above
• Do you feel the need for user input before we finalize decision?
– There will be resistance to change existing local data bases, mailing
lists & web pages
• How do we go about an implementation strategy? We 6 on
committee are not enough and are the wrong types
–
–
–
–
–
2 / 13
ILC specific design requires high level of though & planning
MOUs with CERN or DESY specifying level of support and hardware
Regional experts & their training
Administrators & Beta Testers
Data entry for pre-loading set of to-be-decided historic data
• Snowmass, Frascati, BCD, LCC Notes, DESY LC Notes, etc.
Tom Markiewicz
Progress Since Frascati
• General appreciation of need for more rapid progress
– Rate of meetings increased to weekly in 2006
– More email discussion
• Sense developing that best solution may be specific tools for
BOTH meeting management (InDiCo) AND document management
(Cern Document Server) with later backup of both systems into the
master, monolithic CAD-capable EDMS
– There are clearly downsides to this approach
• Decision to take this approach with InDiCo
– Much of HEP world uses CDS Agenda already and likes it
– CDS Agenda is being absorbed into InDiCo & many enhancements are
planned
3 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
InDiCo Politics
•
Ask Barry & exec committee if they accept this recommendation.
– Well?
•
-Ask John Ferguson to contact CERN management to provide some
reasonably formal MOU on level of support they can provide and what
they may want from the ILC in terms of funds for ILC specific support and
future hardware. Ideally this would all be a CERN contribution to ILC, but
who knows.
– John promised to talk to Robert Aymar
•
-Assume (?) that CERN will host ILC on it's local indico server.
– I received following on Tuesday from CERN InDiCo expert Thomas Baron:
• We would like to propose you to create an InDiCo server dedicated to ILC
usage here at CERN. We would first use one of our existing servers then
migrate it to a dedicated hardware as soon as possible. The address of the
server could be ilcagenda.cern.ch or any other name you would prefer.
• We will install the software and keep it up to date.
• You (or someone else in ILC) would have the total control on the data structure
inside the repository.
•
4 / 13
-Ask Barry who will provide non-CERN technical support, such as
backfilling the system with Snowmass & Frascati (& which other) talks,
who will be the administrators at each node of the tree, etc.
Tom Markiewicz
InDiCo Technical Planning
• See “Possible Solutions” page on ILC EDMS Wiki for “Proposed
InDiCo Tree Structure and Related Questions”
• As structure is a “tree” rather than a “matrix” it is important to set up
tree correctly for ILC
– Advantages
• For each category a calendar is available which encompasses the meetings
attached to the category and all its subcategories
• A “group” of users can be assigned to each node with access rights; I
believe that auto-notification of meetings in not yet available but is planned
– Disadvantages
• Cannot collect in a calendar similar meetings in different branches of the
tree
• Once a category in the tree is defined it can be moved but must not be
deleted so as not to break previously defined URLs.
• Other
– Technical security issues
– Coordination of user names/pw for several areas of the EDMS
– Coordination of data within EDMS and with other management software
5 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Example “Day” Calendars
from “Experiments” page on InDiCo Server
6 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Example “Week” Calendar
from “Experiments” page on InDiCo Server
7 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Example “Week” Calendar
from “Experiments” page on InDiCo Server
(month view is similar)
8 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Proposed ILC Category Tree
•
Machine Design Meetings (regularly scheduled)
–
–
•
Detector Design and Physics Study Meetings (regularly scheduled)
–
–
•
2005-12-10 TTC Frascati meeting
2006-01-11 Boulder Simulation Workshop
2006-03-09 Bangalore LCWS and GDE Meeting
2006-04-nn DOE Review of ILC R&D
2006-07-19 Vancouver GDE Meeting
2006-11-03 Valencia ECFA Physics Workshop and GDE Meeting
Lectures, Talks (at non-ILC specific conferences, Machine, Detectors & Physics)
–
–
–
9 / 13
Institutes
Groups
Workshops & Conferences (ILC Specific: Both Machine, Detector & Physics)
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
Institutional Meetings (Meetings listed here are typically not interregional or international
VRVS, Video or Phone meetings. This node permits institutional calendars of meetings.)
Working Group Meetings (Meetings listed here are explicitly inter-institution by phone, VRVS
or video.)
• Management Level
• Area Level
• Technical Systems
• Global Systems
• R&D
2005-12-23 Tor Raubenheimer presentation to DOE committee investigating accelerator R&D
2006-02-14 ILC Overview talk by Barry Barish at 2006 Aspen Winter Conference
2006-06 Chris A. at EPAC
Tom Markiewicz
Proposed “Institution” Tree Structure
• Institutional Meetings
– Cornell
– FNAL
– SLAC
• L-Band RF in ESB
– 2006-01-09
– 2006-01-23
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PES Progress
Warm L-Band Structure Meetings
SLAC ILC R&D Updates
NLCTA 9:30 Meetings (?)
ILC “Exec Meetings”
ILC “All Hands” Meetings
Miscellaneous
– 2006 ILC Safety Review
10 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
•
Technical Systems
–
•
•
•
Proposed “Group”
Tree Structure
•
•
Area Level
–
e- Source
•
•
•
•
–
–
–
•
–
Linac
•
•
•
•
–
11 / 13
General
General
Cryomodules
RF
Costs
BDS
•
•
General
IR Magnets
Cryomodules
General
–
RF Power
–
Instrumentation
General
General
General
Dumps & Collimators
•
•
General
Dumps
Global Systems
–
–
–
–
–
•
General
Cavity Package
–
•
General
–
•
General
Undulator
Target
RTML
–
•
General
Photocathode
Gun
Laser
General
Lattice
Cost
Magnet Systems
•
DR
•
•
•
–
•
e+ Source
•
•
•
Vacuum Systems
•
Change Control Board
Design & Costing Board
R&D Board
GDE Executive Committee
Weekly Phone meetings
Gang of 4 meetings
Other regular meetings
EDMS Selection Committee Meeting
FALC Meetings
LET
Lattices
Parameters
–
•
Management Level
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Accelerator Physics
Commissioning, Operations & Reliability
•
General
Control System
•
General
Cryogenics
•
General
Civil, Facilities & Services (CFS)
•
General
Installation
•
General
R&D
–
–
–
–
–
–
ATF Based
•
General
ATF2
•
General
ESA Based
•
General
FONT
•
General bi-weekly meeting
TTF based
•
General
Vibration Studies (currently SLAC, BNL, LAPP)
•
General
Tom Markiewicz
Next Steps for InDiCo
• InDiCo as a EASY example of kind of effort required of ILC
people for other parts of EDMS
– Beta testers
– Administrators of nodes
– Group and user management
• Accept Thomas Baron “offer”
– Decide on tree, implement & begin use by beta testers
– Push CERN/Baron on search features currently in “CDS
Agenda” but not yet in InDiCo & any other desired features
(output formats, search terms, etc. )
– Implement Bangalore in InDiCo
– Begin transfer of past meeting files
• Nobu has volunteered to do KEK & CCB relevant files
• Understand how InDiCo can be “backed up” into both
DESY EDMS or CERN EDMS
12 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Next Steps for EDMS
• Decide if Document Management should be
separate from EDMS (for now) or part of it by
considering pros & cons of CERN Doc Server
– If decide to adopt, begin implementation plan similar to
that of InDiCo
– NB: Lars in particular thinks this statement is too strong
& certainly depends on if CDS can handle BCD/RDR
• Continue working on requirements document
• Continue to try to gain working knowledge (as
opposed to “sales pitch” knowledge) of CDS,
Team Center & CERN EDMS
13 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Frascati Slides Follow
Committee Members
John Ferguson – CERN
Lars Hagge - DESY
Tom Markiewicz - SLAC (Chair)
Richard Stanek - FNAL
Nobu Toge - KEK
Harry Weerts - Argonne
15 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Charge to the Committee
The committee should recommend a specific web based
software solution, which may mean an integrated collection
of distinct software packages that will allow ILC
collaborators worldwide to store, search for and retrieve
various kinds of documents.
At least three basic kinds of documents must be handled:
1. meeting/conference/seminar related files
2. publications/white papers/notes and
3. engineering documents:
– CAD drawings, cost estimates, vendor quotes, and QC documents.
16 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Anti-Charge to the Committee
The recommendation of other related virtual communication
tools may be made if they enhance the functioning of the
basic document management system. Such tools may
include calendars, agendas, emailing lists, email notification,
discussion forums, user-modifiable ("wiki") web pages for
interactive working group documentation, etc. The
recommendation or incorporation of these tools should be
considered secondary to the selection of system that
supports the core functions of storage, search and retrieval.
Project management tools (WBS, scheduling, resource
planning) are outside the scope of current charge.
17 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Timeline (from Charge)
One of the first deliverables of the group should be a
written set of requirements for the software tools.
– The recommended solution must reflect the international,
multi-institution nature of the ILC and should try to unify the
work occurring in the different regions on the many disparate
aspects of the ILC.
A progress report to the GDE should be made at the
December 2005 meeting. It is hoped that a decision
can be made early enough in 2006 that
implementation, testing and backfilling of the
archive can occur before the fourth meeting of the
GDE in March 2006, with release to the general ILC
community targeted to April 1, 2006.
18 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Web Page
http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?id=ilc_dms_selection:
ilc_dms_selection_home
19 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Committee Meetings
2005-09-19
– Initial contact as group
2005-10-07
– Abstract discussion of requirements
– Live Demo of Fermilab Installation of Team Center Engineering
EDMS product to 3/6 committee members
2005-10-24
– Discussion of 1st draft (Hagge) of requirements document
2005-11-08
– Video Demo of CERN InDiCo (Meeting Manager) and CERN EDMS
2005-11-11
– Video Demo of DESY installation of UGS TeamCenter Enterprise
EDMS
2005-11-29
– Discussion of progress report, requirements document, cost
estimates, beta testing strategies prior to selection, post selection
implementation strategies
20 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Requirements Document
For the purposes of this status report the key
phrase in the requirements document is:
“Given the time constraints, only systems which are
in use at an HEP laboratory and which are
provided by teams with experience in
implementing, running and supporting an EDMS
will be considered.”
We also assume that a now necessarily vague, but later
formal, “offer to host” will be generated by the lab(s)
supporting the selected system(s)
There are hundreds of open source and commercial products
available. These requirements happily severely limit the
search.
21 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Products Considered
CERN Suite
InDiCo (Meetings&Conferences-CERN written)
CDS-CERN Document Server (CERN written)
Not yet reviewed
CERN EDMS, as used for LHC (Commercial)
Axalant
Datastream7i
User Databases
DESY/FNAL UGS Team Center EDMS (Commercial)
UGS Team Center Enterprise (DESY)
UGS Team Center Engineering (FNAL)
Hybrids of these elements (for example)
InDiCo + CDS + CERN EDMS
InDiCo + CDS + TeamCenter
InDiCo + TeamCenter
Each lab has invested many man years in customizing the
underlying databases and tailoring the web user interface
22 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Description of Products Being
Considered
• See web site for ppt talks with screen captures &
loads more information than can fit in this talk
• In next 4 slides I will introduce these products as
some of the audience may be unfamiliar with
them, but do not ask detailed questions at this
time.
23 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
InDiCo
• Outgrowth of CDS Agenda server with improvements directed
towards conferences & workshops with continued support for
meeting series & lectures
• Active development by-and-for physicists with integration with
other meeting services (VRVS, video nets, etc.) planned
• Tree-style organization with search engine to cut through tree
– Need to understand role of keywords which could help ILC
organize along lines such as WG, GG, institution, region, ILCsubarea, technical system, etc.
24 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
CERN Document Server (CDSware)
http://cdsware.cern.ch
•
•
•
Outgrowth of CERN Preprint &
Library Server
To run your own document
repository on the web
Used by many institutes world wide
(GNU distribution), e.g.:
–
–
–
–
–
•
At CERN, more than 500
collections:
–
–
–
–
•
25 / 13
MeIND - HBZ NRW, Cologne, DE
EPFL Infoscience - EPFL, CH
CAB UNIME – Uni.of Messina, IT
Aristotle Uni of Thessaloniki, GR
UCL Document Server – Uni
catholique de Louvain, BE
Open Access protocol compliancy
All types of documents
Public or private collections
200,000 queries/month; ~1M records
Future search engine for Indico
Tom Markiewicz
CERN EDMS
• Project LifeCycle Management
– Design
• Configuration
• Documents (CAD, text) with
versioning and access control
• Documentation organized and
linked in various structures.
(PBS, WBS, ABS, etc.)
• Approval process (Work Flow)
• Manufacturing Management
–
–
–
–
Manufacturing
Installation
Operation
Maintenance
• Other Data
– Parameters
– Test Data
26 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Team Center EDMS
design view
manufacturing view
conditioning view
hierarchy of assemblies & parts
hierarchy of serialized parts
sequence of work packages
is-serialized-from
part
part
*
is-described-by
affects
ser.part
ser.part
is-described-by
*
work
pkg
ser.part
is-described-by
3D CAD model
certificate
work instruction
drawing
inspection sheet
protocol
01
processing raw data
10
FEM calculation
Product Lifecycle Mgmt
3D Interactive Visualization
for Non-CAD-Users
web interface
with reduced functionality
reader
reviewer
author
web interface
EDMS
core system
lifecycles
database srvr
native user i/f
admin i/f
…
CAD-1
(I-DEAS)
3D CAD
interface
CAD-2
engineer
(SolidEdge, others)
web services
my
web
my
web
Different
EDMS clients for different target groups:eg. xfel.desy.de
27 / 13
my
web
webmaster
Tom Markiewicz
Pros & Cons of Choices
• InDiCo is industry standard for managing “talks”
– May need some flexibility for tailoring output based on different ”keys”
– If adopted, “Talks” would be in a separate DB than other files
• CERN EDMS is a tried & true system useful for document control and
engineering applications. 630k documents, much experience, $nBdecade long project with many of the “bugs” inherent in any out-ofthe-box system found & fixed by support team
– What, if anything, would need to be changed for ILC?
– Mostly developed after the design phase of LHC
– Is the connection to 3D CAD tools adequate?
• UGS TeamCenter EDMS adopted by DESY for ILC-sister XFEL project
after much thought. 200k documents and many CAD files already in
system. Industry powerhouse (GM, Nissan) with strong collaborative
design web-based CAD tools and flexible DB driven structure for
organizing content.
– Currently being customized and extended to post-design phases of XFEL
– Could be an advantage for ILC as it decides how it wants to organize
28 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Cost Information
•
DESY TeamCenter
– Licenses to the ILC community from its current stock without charge iff
1. Server is located at DESY
2. DESY is the contact for the vendor hotline
– ILC support handled by present team with 2 additional support persons for ILC
• plus trained regional pool of regional experts
– Hardware configuration not discussed, presumed in the noise
•
CERN EDMS
– ZERO marginal cost to add ILC as a standard EDMS project hosted and
supported at CERN
– ILC support handled by the present support team with one system
administrator specifically for ILC.
• Assuming good mapping of ILC needs onto existing system features
– Subject to database size, might require some investment in hardware
•
CERN Indico
– No licensing costs
– Installation and technical support from current team, with eventually, one ILC
system administrator.
– Duplicate existing CERN hardware of 6 servers @ ~$3000 each
29 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Committee’s Current Consensus
(NB: Not yet a recommendation)
Use InDiCo for Meeting Management
– Back fill CERN or TC EDMS with InDiCo pointers & files
– Begin an ILC specific instance of InDiCo
Decide among TeamCenter, CDS & CERN EDMS
for document & engineering control by applying
Benchmark Functionality Tests that are being
written into the Requirements Document
– Certain committee members already have an opinion
– Ideally we would construct a “light” ILC implementation of
each product as part of selection process, but ….
• Requires more time and resources than committee has
• “Light” exercise unlikely to have adequate breadth & depth
to discriminate
30 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Resources Required
• From NOW to “Decision Time”
– Begin InDiCo implementation
– Develop enough hands-on experience with other
systems to judge their relative merits
• NB: while lab support might be offered for a “chosen”
system, this kind of effort may not be
• In Q1 of 2006 will need expert support to
– Begin to implement the chosen solution
– Back fill it with enough data/content/usefulness that
users adopt it
– Test & administer
31 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Community Feedback
A danger to this endeavor is adopting a system that the targeted
users do not like & refuse to use
– Best inoculation against this is user input and beta testing
– However, EDMS will always feel much more clumsy than ‘Google’ and
EDMS value not appreciated until system is loaded with content
– Asking for user opinions may open a can of worms unless scope of
user suggestions is limited
– Recommendation in any event will rest in hands of committee
We are interested in GDE’s opinions on desirability and mechanisms
for user input
It is clear that analysis oriented individuals are in the community who
can better implement and more fully test system than can this
committee. Should a volunteer support staff be recruited?
32 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Immediate Plans & Timeline Update
• Feb.15, 2006
– Finish specifying “Requirements” and “Functionality Tests”
– Develop as robust version of InDiCo as possible
– Develop “light” ILC implementation of CDS, CERN EDMS &
TeamCenter for comparison
• March 1, 2006
– Down Select for tools to handle documents and engineering
data
• April 1, 2006
– Begin to train pool of regional experts in the chosen system
– Release to larger group (all ILC?) an InDiCo system backfilled
with as much relevant data as possible
• Snowmass, Frascati, Bangalore
• SLAC BDS meetings
– Release a Document management System that can handle the
BCD and RDR
33 / 13
Tom Markiewicz
Conclusion
• If GDE accepts limited scope of search, we are
close to a decision
• A good product roll out will require a lot more
effort than six non-experts can give it in the ~100
days before April 1
• Advice from GDE exec on user input and
implementation strategy requested
34 / 13
Tom Markiewicz