Transcript ILC EDMS Selection Committee Progress Report Tom Markiewicz SLAC 7 December 2005 Frascati GDE Meeting Committee Members John Ferguson – CERN Lars Hagge - DESY Tom Markiewicz - SLAC.

ILC
EDMS Selection Committee
Progress Report
Tom Markiewicz
SLAC
7 December 2005
Frascati GDE Meeting
Committee Members
John Ferguson – CERN
Lars Hagge - DESY
Tom Markiewicz - SLAC (Chair)
Richard Stanek - FNAL
Nobu Toge - KEK
Harry Weerts - Argonne
2 / 21
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.
3 / 21
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.
4 / 21
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.
5 / 21
Tom Markiewicz
Web Page
http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?id=ilc_dms_selection:
ilc_dms_selection_home
6 / 21
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
7 / 21
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.
8 / 21
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
9 / 21
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.
10 / 21
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.
11 / 21
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:
–
–
–
–
•
12 / 21
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
13 / 21
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
14 / 21
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
15 / 21
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
16 / 21
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
17 / 21
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
18 / 21
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?
19 / 21
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
20 / 21
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
21 / 21
Tom Markiewicz