Seeking SC Feedback on Draft Technology Strategy and Roadmap for EarthCube Draft of 3 November 2015 The Technology and Architecture Committee (TAC) Chairs: Yolanda Gil and Jay Pearlman Presenter: Yolanda Gil

EarthCube 4-Month Interim Plan The deliverables of the 4-month interim period consist of two documents: a long-term strategic plan and an implementation plan, finalized by November 30, The strategic and implementation plans should include the EarthCube vision and goals, science and cyberinfrastructure drivers, and the process for the EarthCube community to make progress towards those goals, including: a plan for how EarthCube Governance will discuss and evaluate the form and function of a reference architecture for EarthCube; determining gaps in geosciences capabilities and resources (considering both EarthCube funded projects and externally supported resources); and setting priorities for further development on a yearly cycle that can be used by NSF to help support further EarthCube development.

Why Architecture Analogy (thanks to Mohan Ramamurthy): Each technology component: a country with its own engineers and approaches Each scientist: a traveler who should get decent service Standards: facilitate connecting rail segments across countries, manufacturing, etc Architecture: blueprint of major hubs and high-speed lines, agreements to standards, coordination of schedules, etc. Existing data facilities and infrastructure: railroad infrastructure that was already there serving travelers and uses different standards and approaches Architecture goals: Connect technology components so information exchange is fluid Make it very easy to add new functionality How: standards, agreements, strategy

As a Scientist You Should Want: Coverage of all possible destinations All the tech capabilities you need Reasonable scheduling options Easy to get things done with technology Reasonable travel times Efficient processes Reasonable prices Does not take too much of your time Standard rules Uniform way to use technology Comfort Advanced capabilities that make travel fun

As a Scientist You Should Want: Coverage of all possible destinations All the tech capabilities you need Reasonable scheduling options Easy to get things done with technology Reasonable travel times Efficient processes Reasonable prices Does not take too much of your time Usability Uniform way to use technology Comfort Advanced capabilities that make travel fun You need to tell us: What destinations are priorities? What usability criteria are most important? What is comfortable travel? What are reasonable travel times? What rules are reasonable if you are going to develop part of the infrastructure yourselves?

As TAC We Want to Give You: A framework to specify use cases This is the functionality needed This is how it should work This is how it should connect to existing data facilities and other existing pieces This is how we want things to work A testbed to evaluate technology gaps This capability is not where it needs to be This capability is fine We are missing this capability An architecture roadmap That is a reasonable travel time That standard will not work in practice What destinations are priorities? What usability criteria are most important? What is comfortable travel? What are reasonable travel times? What rules are reasonable if you are going to develop part of the infrastructure yourselves?

TAC Working Groups Use Cases Gap Analysis Architecture Testbed Standards Semantic Infrastructure

A Proposal for a Use Cases Roadmap Draft of 3 November 2015 The TAC Use Cases WG Chairs: Lisa Kempler, Danie Kinkade, Karen Stocks Presenter: Karen Stocks

Use Cases Roadmap

A Proposal for a Testbed Roadmap Draft of 3 November 2015 The TAC Testbed WG Chairs: Ken Keiser, Emily Law Presenter: Ken Keiser

EarthCube Testbed Plans and Iterative Approach ECITE Project EarthCube Community Operations ECITE Project EarthCube Community Design & Build ECITE Project EarthCube Community Proof of Concept Prototype Validate Design Develop I&T Platforms I&T Cases Users’ Guide Best Practices Catalog Design Req’ments Recommend Evaluation Methods Integration Use Cases Interop Use Cases Use Cases Evaluations Reviews Demonstrate Community Engagement (Governance, Projects, End Users, TWG) Community Participation & Input (Integration prioritization, Evaluation/Compliance Criteria, Integration Scenarios, Evaluation, Review) Prototype Use Cases Best Practices

Approach Description This Iterative Approach combines work performed up to this point by the EarthCube TAC Testbed Working Group effort, potential future EarthCube participation, and planned efforts by the recently funded EarthCube Integration and Test Environment (ECITE) Integrated Activities project. The ECITE project is implementing the functionality and infrastructure to facilitate the integration and interoperability evaluations of EarthCube projects. EarthCube should be defining the needed levels of integration and interoperability evaluation and providing guidance on the application of ECITE towards those objectives; to include the definition of use cases and methodologies that will demonstrate and exercise the scope of EarthCube integration and interoperability requirements. The initial Proof of Concept phase will entail the use of (probably) a single use case in order to rapidly implement and demonstrate a prototype of the ECITE infrastructure and interfaces. Building from a successful Proof of Concept phase, the Design & Build phase will begin using additional use cases and employing EarthCube-defined evaluation methodologies in a more robustly designed and developed ECITE environment, and including the documentation of best practices to be used for evaluation of future technologies. The Operations phase will provide EarthCube with an operational ECITE environment to perform ongoing evaluations of future technologies and the results of funded projects, for determination of compliance with EarthCube-defined integration and interoperability objectives. Community engagement and participation is critical across all of these phases to insure that the EarthCube Testbed environment is addressing the major needs.

A Proposal for an Architecture Roadmap Draft of 3 November 2015 The TAC Architecture WG Chairs: Phil Chang, Basil Gomez, Emily Law, Mohan Ramamurthy, Steve Richards, Ilya Zaslavsky Presenter: Jay Pearlman

How do we get to a usable and adopted info system? Engage the science and CI communities for developing and adopting an infrastructure Focus on sustainability, evolution, and metrics for evaluating risks associated with its operation. Base on current approaches – reuse, alter, if necessary invent Identify pilot activities to exercise and test the architecture Refine and support adoption process Adapt architecture to changing technology and science requirements.  Science Needs  Sustainability  Build upon existing systems

EC architectural principles EC science driver needs Existing technical capabilities Existing architectures Operational SoS Framework Existing research scenarios Science enterprise CI Community Resources and Capabilities Science Community Needs and Methodologies Architecture

Operational SoS Framework EarthCube capabilities Domain system capabilities Capabilities of individual researchers and teams; disruptive technologies Matching user needs with capabilities, identifying gaps, promoting best practices Promoting modularity and interoperability of existing systems Supporting innovation and capacity building Architecture implementa tions Architecture Prototype Pilots for Specific Scenarios Testbed I&T Environment Core capabilities Core processes/mechanisms Monitoring and metrics From the system of systems architecture framework to architecture implementations: iterative development contributions feedbacks

Strategic Direction The mission of the EarthCube Technology and Architecture Standing Committee is to oversee the technology and architecture development of EarthCube to assure that EarthCube infrastructure is community-driven, supports standards for interoperability, and incorporates advanced technologies to become a commonly used capability that supports scientists on their research efforts.  Requirements  Testing  Adoption Scientists Play a Key Role Use Cases Architecture Testbed