ILC EDMS Selection Committee Report to Exec Committee

Tom Markiewicz SLAC 04 May 2006 GDE Exec Meeting

CERN Situation

Nick Walker’s analysis of CERN situation is valid (and perceptive and complete) with one major correction:

–

While having decided on CATIA as their 3D CAD program, as opposed to I-DEAS/SolidEdge/??, the religious difference is between coupling the EDMS to the CAD (as is now done with TeamCentre and IDEAS ar DESY/FNAL) and decoupling them (that is, treating CAD files as “dumb” files that require a human integrator to check consistency.) CERN fully understands that 3d is the future and must be supported. Both CERN and DESY understand that many/several 3D CAD systems will need to be supported for multinational projects. Advantage of CERN approach IS the decoupling and resultant freedom to separately change/upgrade either CAD side or EDMS side; advantage of ILC (DESY/FNAL approach) is that tight coupling, will help multi-site engineering.

2 / 12

Tom Markiewicz

Conclusion from Bangalore

3 / 12 • • •

The EDMS committee recommends the approach outlined in this talk A complete light-weight instance should be configured and implemented by an expanded team of interested parties and the result tested enough to approve/reject before 100% project approval Action by director, executive committee, RDR matrix leaders and users required if this is to go smoothly.

–

Good will and patience during learning period would be beneficial as well, even if “it wasn’t invented here”

Tom Markiewicz

4 / 12

The EDMS committee is NOT prepared to IMPLEMENT, CONFIGURE and SUPPORT their choice

Toge has promised for >1 month to look into implementing BCD in the CDS (Cern Document Server) Markiewicz has promised for >1 month a set of

– –

Document types with associated identifying information fields. Examples:

• ILC-Note-2006-nnnn • ILC-File-2006-nnnn • ILC-Talk-2006-nnnn

An initial set of “Virtual Collections” to serve as an initial point of discussion. Examples:

• SiD Docs • BDS Docs • RDR Docs

Nothing has been done for months/weeks

Tom Markiewicz

5 / 12

Screen Capture of CERN CDS

Tom Markiewicz

CDS Config to be decided for ILC

• • • • • • • • • • • •

Types Notes Files Preprints Reports Books Photos Meetings Contracts Publications Momos MOUs Contract

• • • • • • • • •

Collections Working Group Lab Division Project Theses MAC EC Detector “Concept” Detector “Collaboration” Detector Concept/Subdetector

–

SiD/Calorimeter (e.g.)

Together with required “tag” info for each type of doc/collection 6 / 12

Tom Markiewicz

7 / 12

TeamCenter Config

• •

“Teams”, Part Breakdown structure, etc. need to be defined

–

Parallelism with current/future WBS, org chart, etc. structures would be valuable Glossy user interface (very helpful) requires input and work by specialists

Tom Markiewicz

8 / 12

INDICO

•

Going Well, but….

–

Backfilling

• Snowmass 2005 • KEK 2004 –

Incomplete adoption

• Regionally – Fear of loss of control • Systems – Sometimes have legacy systems that works » BDS (TWM system)

TWM promised short “ILC Specific” cheat sheet for user/admin but has not delivered

Tom Markiewicz

9 / 12

What doe EC Need to Do

Move to Implementation, Configuration, Support Model with IT professionals

– –

Configuration by stakeholders Even if support by CERN (Indico/CDS) and DESY (TeamCentre), ILC requires intellectual involvement with configuration.

–

Config issues often religious in nature:

• Most MFD groups have own lab-specific edms, numbering, naming schemes

Tom Markiewicz

Known Weaknesses in Decision

10 / 12 • • •

Lack of integration between separate elements of system

– –

Integration Indico-CDS promised by CERN Integration CDS-EDMS promised by DESY Immature development of DESY TeamCentre system

– –

We have time CERN worker-bees promise to help Same ambiguity between CDS and EDMS “work flow control” that exists in current CERN system

–

Assume a “physics” (CDS) versus “engineering” (EDMS) split as has apparantly been successful for LHC

Tom Markiewicz

11 / 12

Nutshell Reasoning behind Decisions

• • • •

Monolithic approach does not exist at DESY, CERN or Fermilab DESY EDMS has potential to integrate all needs, but this is >=3 2 years away (imho) CERN Indico & CDS are large scale suppoted sytems with enough flexibility in configuration to handle any conceivable ILC need

–

DocDB from Fermilab (BTev) rejected for uni-person support

–

Believe is that CERN CDS can be configured to be equally user friendly and with better support, scaling model DESY/FNAL/XFEL tie-ins cannot be ignored

Tom Markiewicz

Other Pressing Issues

Some way to approach the “communication” issues that EDMS committee did (and does) NOT want to be responsible for is nonetheless required

– – – – –

WIKIs Webex, VRVS, ESNET communications Listservers, bulletin boards Task tracking: JIRA. W3C codes IRQ (AOL IM, ICQ, etc.) EDMS can take place of WIKI if configured appropriately

–

Query DB appropriately to bring out files in correct order rather than hand-wiring web page to file links in the edms

12 / 12

Tom Markiewicz

13 / 12

Suggestions from TWM to EC

• •

Working groups of computer professionals and ILC stakeholders be assembled Model for ILC support of these issues be made

– –

I prefer model where these professionals work for the central organization and are not contributed labor by member institutions I believe in need for “soft” “communicators” that exist now (Jackson, Calder, Clements, etc.) but feel even more strongly that ILC central GDE needs its own support for issues outlined here (plus general DB, web, WBS, Project planning (Primevera, etc.) codes.

Tom Markiewicz