Transcript ILC EDMS Selection Committee Progress Report Tom Markiewicz SLAC 29 November 2005 Committee Members John Ferguson - CERN - John.Ferguson(at)cern.ch Lars Hagge - DESY - lars.hagge(at)desy.de Tom Markiewicz.

ILC
EDMS Selection Committee
Progress Report
Tom Markiewicz
SLAC
29 November 2005
Committee Members
John Ferguson - CERN - John.Ferguson(at)cern.ch
Lars Hagge - DESY - lars.hagge(at)desy.de
Tom Markiewicz - SLAC - twmark(at)slac.stanford.edu (Chair)
Nobu Toge - KEK - Nobu.Toge(at)kek.jp
Richard Stanek - FNAL - rstanek(at)fnal.gov
Harry Weerts - Argonne - weerts(at)pa.msu.edu
2 / 17
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 / 17
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 / 17
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 / 17
Tom Markiewicz
Web Page
http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?id=ilc_dms_selection:
ilc_dms_selection_home
6 / 17
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
(Axalant & Datastream7i, two commercial products)
2005-11-11
– Video Demo of DESY installation of UGS TeamCenter EDMS
2005-11-29
– Discussion of progress reports, requirements, costs, beta testing
strategies prior to selection, post selection implementation
strategies
7 / 17
Tom Markiewicz
Requirements Document
For the purposes of this status report the key
phrase in the requirements document is:
Assumptions and Dependencies
•
8 / 17
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.
Tom Markiewicz
Products Considered
• CERN Suite
– InDiCo
– CDS (Cern Document Server)
• Not yet reviewed
– CERN EDMS
• Axalant
• Datastream7i
• User Databases
• UGS Team Center Product
– UGS Team Center (DESY)
– UGS Team Center Engineering (FNAL)
• Hybrids of these elements
9 / 17
Tom Markiewicz
Description of Products Being
Considered
• See web site for ppt talks with screen captures &
loads more text than can fit in this talk
10 / 17
Tom Markiewicz
In Tom’s Opinion at this point there
are two logical choices
• Team Center for Meetings, Documents &
Engineering Applications
• InDiCo for Meeting Management
– HEP “Industry Standard”
• Team Center for Documents & Engineering
– Back fill Team Center with InDiCo pointers & files
• No concrete reason not to choose CERN EDMS
– This is where comparison with requirements document
would come in
11 / 17
Tom Markiewicz
Dilemma
• How to choose a system without at least trying to
implement an ILC specific instance?
12 / 17
Tom Markiewicz
Support
• In Q1 of 2006 will need expert support to
– implement the chosen solution
– back fill it with enough data/content/usefulness that
users adopt it
– Test & administer
13 / 17
Tom Markiewicz
Conclusion
• If GDE accepts limited scope of search, we are
close to a decision
14 / 17
Tom Markiewicz