Joint CASC/CCI Workshop Report Strategic and Tactical Recommendations EDUCAUSE Campus Cyberinfrastructure Working Group Coalition for Academic Scientific.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Supporting Research on Campus - Using Cyberinfrastructure (CI) Public research use of ICT has rapidly increased in the past decade, requiring high performance.
Advertisements

EInfrastructures (Internet and Grids) US Resource Centers Perspective: implementation and execution challenges Alan Blatecky Executive Director SDSC.
1 Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science & Engineering (CIF21) NSF-wide Cyberinfrastructure Vision People, Sustainability, Innovation,
Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) Presentation to: SBE Advisory Committee By: Dr. Kaye Husbands Fealing National Science Foundation November.
1 Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science & Engineering (CF21) IRNC Kick-Off Workshop July 13,
E-Research Coordinating Committee report to CAUL April 2006 Cathrine Harboe-Ree.
STEM Education Reorganization April 3, STEM Reorganization: Background  The President has placed a very high priority on using government resources.
Technical Review Group (TRG)Agenda 27/04/06 TRG Remit Membership Operation ICT Strategy ICT Roadmap.
1 Exploring NSF Funding Opportunities in DUE Tim Fossum Division of Undergraduate Education Vermont EPSCoR NSF Research Day May 6, 2008.
1 Ideas About the Future of HPC in Europe “The views expressed in this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of.
EInfrastructures (Internet and Grids) - 15 April 2004 Sharing ICT Resources – “Think Globally, Act Locally” A point-of-view from the United States Mary.
THE JOINED UP WORLD OF E-RESEARCH Professor Neil McLean National Technical Standards Adviser to the Department of Education Science and Training (DEST)
Institutional Perspective on Credit Systems for Research Data MacKenzie Smith Research Director, MIT Libraries.
1 Building National Cyberinfrastructure Alan Blatecky Office of Cyberinfrastructure EPSCoR Meeting May 21,
Server and Short to Mid Term Storage Funding Research Computing Funding Issues.
Computing in Atmospheric Sciences Workshop: 2003 Challenges of Cyberinfrastructure Alan Blatecky Executive Director San Diego Supercomputer Center.
Research Cyberinfrastructure Alliance Working in partnership to enable computationally intensive, innovative, interdisciplinary research for the 21 st.
CI Days: Planning Your Campus Cyberinfrastructure Strategy Russ Hobby, Internet2 Internet2 Member Meeting 9 October 2007.
Partnerships and Broadening Participation Dr. Nathaniel G. Pitts Director, Office of Integrative Activities May 18, 2004 Center.
Session Chair: Peter Doorn Director, Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS), The Netherlands.
Preserving Digital Collections for Future Scholarship Oya Y. Rieger Cornell University
National Science Foundation 1 Evaluating the EHR Portfolio Judith A. Ramaley Assistant Director Education and Human Resources.
Towards a European network for digital preservation Ideas for a proposal Mariella Guercio, University of Urbino.
Contextual framework for research. Purpose of contextual framework To provide a shared language to underpin the PHEA E-learning proposals, initiatives.
Campus Cyberinfrastructure – Network Infrastructure and Engineering (CC-NIE) Kevin Thompson NSF Office of CyberInfrastructure April 25, 2012.
What is Cyberinfrastructure? Russ Hobby, Internet2 Clemson University CI Days 20 May 2008.
Making Campus Cyberinfrastructure Work for Your Campus Guy Almes Patrick Dreher Craig Stewart Dir. Academy for Dir. Advanced Computing Associate Dean Advanced.
Russ Hobby Program Manager Internet2 Cyberinfrastructure Architect UC Davis.
What is GEO? launched in response to calls for action by the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, Earth Observation Summits, and by the G8 (Group.
08/05/06 Slide # -1 CCI Workshop Snowmass, CO CCI Roadmap Discussion Jim Bottum and Patrick Dreher Building the Campus Cyberinfrastructure Roadmap Campus.
Cyberinfrastructure What is it? Russ Hobby Internet2 Joint Techs, 18 July 2007.
GRID Overview Internet2 Member Meeting Spring 2003 Sandra Redman Information Technology and Systems Center and Information Technology Research Center National.
Middleware Camp NMI (NSF Middleware Initiative) Program Director Alan Blatecky Advanced Networking Infrastructure and Research.
Mark Luker, Vice President, EDUCAUSE EDUCAUSE Cyberinfrastructure.
Ruth Pordes November 2004TeraGrid GIG Site Review1 TeraGrid and Open Science Grid Ruth Pordes, Fermilab representing the Open Science.
“A Library outranks any other one thing a community can do to benefit its people.” --Andrew Carnegie.
Symposium on Global Scientific Data Infrastructures Panel Two: Stakeholder Communities in the DWF Ann Wolpert, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Board.
Developing & Sustaining Community Schools to Build a Systemic Initiative April 8, 2010 Janice Chu-Zhu, Sr. Dir. Natl. Capacity Building Coalition Forum.
Award # funded by the National Science Foundation Award #ACI Jetstream: A Distributed Cloud Infrastructure for.
1 NSF/TeraGrid Science Advisory Board Meeting July 19-20, San Diego, CA Brief TeraGrid Overview and Expectations of Science Advisory Board John Towns TeraGrid.
Funding: Staffing for Research Computing What staffing models does your institution use for research computing? How does your institution pay for the staffing.
ARL Workshop on New Collaborative Relationships: The Role of Academic Libraries in the Digital Data Universe September 26-27, 2006 ARL Prue.
Health Management Information Systems Unit 3 Electronic Health Records Component 6/Unit31 Health IT Workforce Curriculum Version 1.0/Fall 2010.
April 14, 2005MIT Libraries Visiting Committee Libraries Strategic Plan Theme III Work to shape the future MacKenzie Smith Associate Director for Technology.
Cyberinfrastructure Overview Russ Hobby, Internet2 ECSU CI Days 4 January 2008.
Cyberinfrastructure: Many Things to Many People Russ Hobby Program Manager Internet2.
What’s Happening at Internet2 Renee Woodten Frost Associate Director Middleware and Security 8 March 2005.
NSF Middleware Initiative Purpose To design, develop, deploy and support a set of reusable, expandable set of middleware functions and services that benefit.
Team Leader, Technology Policy and Strategy, UNFCCC Mr Andrew Higham THE CANCUN AGREEMENTS, THE TECHNOLOGY MECHANISM AND TECHNOLOGY NEEDS ASSESSMENTS UNFCCC.
NFFA-EUROPE: Information and Data Management Repository Platform for nanoscience in Europe LOGO of your Pilot – organisation / initiative Stefano Cozzini.
EGI-InSPIRE RI EGI-InSPIRE EGI-InSPIRE RI EGI strategy and Grand Vision Ludek Matyska EGI Council Chair EGI InSPIRE.
Developing a Coherent Cyberinfrastructure from Local Campus to National Facilities: Challenges and Strategies Status of the.
Research Data Lifecycle Management Workshop Report Curt Hillegas 9/8/2011.
All Hands Meeting 2005 BIRN-CC: Building, Maintaining and Maturing a National Information Infrastructure to Enable and Advance Biomedical Research.
1 Open Science Grid: Project Statement & Vision Transform compute and data intensive science through a cross- domain self-managed national distributed.
UTPA 2012: A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS-PAN AMERICAN Approved by President Cárdenas November 21, 2005 Goals reordered January 31, 2006.
SIENA: Grid and Cloud Standards for e- Science and beyond David Wallom for the SIENA consortium.
June 23, 2016 Organizational Overview. 2 Automation Federation Background A fragmented community of automation professional associations and societies.
Announcing the 2014 National Digital Stewardship Agenda.
Sustaining the software capabilities long term Address Solutions as part of software. Act on “Hard challenges are not technical” bringing in the right.
EPSCoR means “Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
GISELA & CHAIN Workshop Digital Cultural Heritage Network
E-Research Coordinating Committee report to CAUL
Summit 2017 Breakout Group 2: Data Management (DM)
Topics Introduction to Research Development
Scheduled Accomplishments
GISELA & CHAIN Workshop Digital Cultural Heritage Network
Bird of Feather Session
Wrap-Up – NSF Site Visit 8 February 2010
Presentation transcript:

Joint CASC/CCI Workshop Report Strategic and Tactical Recommendations EDUCAUSE Campus Cyberinfrastructure Working Group Coalition for Academic Scientific Computation Workshop: July 2008 Report: February 2009

§2.1: Harnessing Campus and National Resources SR 2.1.1: Campuses, in partnership with national resource providers and governmental agencies, should support, promote, and develop a coherent, comprehensive set of computing and data facilities. TR 2.1.1a: Integrate national resources with the campus layer in a way that ensures transparency, scalability, and ease of use. TR 2.1.1b: Develop funding models that enable and demand integration of resources from lab to campus to national center. TR 2.1.1c: Develop and deploy processes and policies that ensure flexibility for PIs to choose local or national resources.

§2.1: Harnessing, cont’d SR 2.1.1, continued TR 2.1.1d: [Federal and state] governmental funding agencies should implement [award] terms that encourage sharing and effective use of resources at all layers, while eliminating disincentives for researchers to use campus or other shared resources. TR 2.1.1e: Campuses should encourage resource sharing where local governance and policy allow it, thus helping improve scholarship. TR 2.1.1f: Campus IT organizations should take an active role in exploring new technologies by serving as a conduit via the CIO (or equivalent) to promote and develop new capabilities and access to resources that are external to the campus.

§2.1: Harnessing, cont’d SR 2.1.2: Agencies, campuses, and national or state network organizations must improve the aggregate national network infrastructure needed to address the data-transfer and remote resource access needs of a coherent CI. TR 2.1.2a: Campus networks must be designed to support cybersecurity, while also supporting the performance and robustness needed by CI. TR 2.1.2b: Network leaders must choose architectures and patterns of interconnection of network elements to support the broader coherent national CI. TR 2.1.2c: Agency and campus leaders must invest … to accomplish this.

§2.1: Harnessing, cont’d SR 2.1.3: Agencies and campuses must work together to create technical and nontechnical architectures to enable researchers and other CI users to make the most effective use of campus and national resources. TR 2.1.3a: Agencies must include campus CI leaders in planning the evolution of national CI resources such as the TeraGrid and the Open Science Grid. TR 2.1.3b: Campuses must prepare to integrate new and existing campus resources into the resulting architecture.

§2.2: Information Life Cycle SR 2.2.1: Funding agencies and institutions must fund both (1) operational implementations of data preservation to meet immediate needs and (2) research on data preservation and reuse to guide future activities. TR 2.2.1a: … [A]gencies and institutions should fund research to develop and operationally use better techniques and tools for long-term data preservation, discovery, and reuse. …

§2.2: Information, cont’d SR 2.2.2: Federal agencies, disciplinary communities, institutions, and data management experts should develop, publish, and use standards for provenance, metadata, discoverability, and openness. TR 2.2.2a: Research institutions and communities should develop, vigorously disseminate, and adopt standards for data provenance, metadata, discoverability, reusability, and openness for all phases of the data life cycle. Institutions … and … communities should strive to achieve consensus on standards in these areas. Where data are published openly, standards should be developed for giving credit to data providers.

§2.2: Information, cont’d SR 2.2.2, continued TR 2.2.2b: Research institutions must define internal data life-cycle processes, including identifying parties responsible for management, oversight, and delivery of services in support of data preservation …. Such people or organizational subunits then function as the stewards of the data for the university.

§2.2: Information, cont’d SR 2.2.2, continued TR 2.2.2c: Research institutions should develop and adopt … standards regarding ownership of data within the institutions and … derive policies on responsibilities for data preservation over time. … [R]esearch institutions and communities should investigate … whether responsibility for long-term data preservation resides with … institutions, libraries, virtual organizations, or federal funding agencies. There is a need for standardized mechanisms that will allow the storage, discoverability, and usability of data over long periods of time while maintaining [provenance and authenticity] information ….

§2.2: Information, cont’d SR 2.2.3: Funding agencies, research institutions, and communities must collaborate to develop a combination of policy and financial frameworks to ensure maintenance of important data over time scales longer than the career of any … investigator. TR 2.2.3a: [Funding agency data distribution policy] must expand to explicitly address maintenance of data over periods of time longer than the career of a single investigator … TR 2.2.3b: … federal and state funding agencies and research institutions must develop financial and management strategies that assure … funds for [such] maintenance of data …

§2.3: Identity Management, Authent’n, and Author’n SR 2.3.1: Agencies, campuses, and national and state organizations should adopt a single, open, standards-based system for identity management, authentication, and authorization, thus improving the usability and interoperability of CI resources … TR 2.3.1a: The global federated system for identity management, authentication, and authorization that is supported by the InCommon Federation should be adopted with an initial focus on major research universities and colleges. [Later, it] should be implemented generally within funding agencies and other educational institutions.

§2.4: Human Resources and Broader Impact SR 2.4.1: Agencies and campuses should support a strategic investment in human capital and curricula in order to build a pipeline of qualified experts who can develop the full capacity of CI. TR 2.4.1a: Institutions should commit to supporting the development and delivery of modules, workshops, and courses to address the growing need for CI literacy.

§2.4: Human Resources cont’d SR 2.4.1, cont’d TR 2.4.1b: Curricular materials for computational scientists should include systems, architecture, programming, algorithms, and numerical methods, and should prepare them to think across disciplinary boundaries. TR 2.4.1c: National organizations and/or open-source mechanisms should be used to share curricular materials.

§2.4: Human Resources cont’d SR 2.4.2: Agencies and campuses should develop technologies and tools to use the emerging CI for education and scholarship. TR 2.4.2a: A diverse set of communities should commit to the implementation of advanced CI technologies before there is an obvious return on investment. … TR 2.4.2b: Investigate whether technological and organizational factors that support effective virtualization can be standardized or provided as commoditized infrastructure. … TR 2.4.2c: Offer awards for supporting community services at all levels, including the development of new science applications, operation of technology infrastructure, and ongoing maintenance of these services. …

§2.4: Human Resources cont’d SR 2.4.3: Agencies and campuses should invest in partnerships between industry and academia. TR 2.4.3a: These partnerships should work with businesses to adopt the use of computational science and supercomputing and assist the transfer of new computational science and supercomputing technologies from sponsored research projects to small and medium- sized businesses. TR 2.4.3b: These partnerships should identify industry needs for new modeling software, adapt software to run effectively on modern supercomputer platforms, and provide a repository for sharing this software.

§2.4: Human Resources cont’d SR cont’d TR 2.4.3c: Academia and industry should adopt a sensible model for sharing intellectual property. The NSF Industry/University Cooperative Research Center program could provide a viable model. TR 2.4.3d: Academia an industry need to develop effective strategies to encourage students from traditionally underrepresented groups to pursue academic careers in computational science and to address workforce needs in industry.