1. ILC EDMS Selection Committee Progress Report Tom Markiewicz / SLAC 12 January 2006 GDE Executive Committee Weekly Meeting

2. Tom Markiewicz 2 / 13 Question posed to Exec Committee @ Frascati that need answers (Frascati slides appended to this presentation) Do you accept limited selection of EDMS products under consideration? –Team Center (DESY, FNAL) or CERN InDiCo, CDS, EDMS or combination of above Do you feel the need for user input before we finalize decision? –There will be resistance to change existing local data bases, mailing lists & web pages How do we go about an implementation strategy? We 6 on committee are not enough and are the wrong types –ILC specific design requires high level of though & planning –MOUs with CERN or DESY specifying level of support and hardware –Regional experts & their training –Administrators & Beta Testers –Data entry for pre-loading set of to-be-decided historic data Snowmass, Frascati, BCD, LCC Notes, DESY LC Notes, etc.

3. Tom Markiewicz 3 / 13 Progress Since Frascati General appreciation of need for more rapid progress –Rate of meetings increased to weekly in 2006 –More email discussion Sense developing that best solution may be specific tools for BOTH meeting management (InDiCo) AND document management (Cern Document Server) with later backup of both systems into the master, monolithic CAD-capable EDMS –There are clearly downsides to this approach Decision to take this approach with InDiCo –Much of HEP world uses CDS Agenda already and likes it –CDS Agenda is being absorbed into InDiCo & many enhancements are planned

4. Tom Markiewicz 4 / 13 InDiCo Politics Ask Barry & exec committee if they accept this recommendation. –Well? -Ask John Ferguson to contact CERN management to provide some reasonably formal MOU on level of support they can provide and what they may want from the ILC in terms of funds for ILC specific support and future hardware. Ideally this would all be a CERN contribution to ILC, but who knows. –John promised to talk to Robert Aymar -Assume (?) that CERN will host ILC on it's local indico server. –I received following on Tuesday from CERN InDiCo expert Thomas Baron: We would like to propose you to create an InDiCo server dedicated to ILC usage here at CERN. We would first use one of our existing servers then migrate it to a dedicated hardware as soon as possible. The address of the server could be ilcagenda.cern.ch or any other name you would prefer. We will install the software and keep it up to date. You (or someone else in ILC) would have the total control on the data structure inside the repository. -Ask Barry who will provide non-CERN technical support, such as backfilling the system with Snowmass & Frascati (& which other) talks, who will be the administrators at each node of the tree, etc.

5. Tom Markiewicz 5 / 13 InDiCo Technical Planning See “Possible Solutions” page on ILC EDMS Wiki for “Proposed InDiCo Tree Structure and Related Questions” As structure is a “tree” rather than a “matrix” it is important to set up tree correctly for ILC –Advantages For each category a calendar is available which encompasses the meetings attached to the category and all its subcategories A “group” of users can be assigned to each node with access rights; I believe that auto-notification of meetings in not yet available but is planned –Disadvantages Cannot collect in a calendar similar meetings in different branches of the tree Once a category in the tree is defined it can be moved but must not be deleted so as not to break previously defined URLs. Other –Technical security issues –Coordination of user names/pw for several areas of the EDMS –Coordination of data within EDMS and with other management software

6. Tom Markiewicz 6 / 13 Example “Day” Calendars from “Experiments” page on InDiCo Server

7. Tom Markiewicz 7 / 13 Example “Week” Calendar from “Experiments” page on InDiCo Server

8. Tom Markiewicz 8 / 13 Example “Week” Calendar from “Experiments” page on InDiCo Server (month view is similar)

9. Tom Markiewicz 9 / 13 Proposed ILC Category Tree Machine Design Meetings (regularly scheduled) –Institutional Meetings (Meetings listed here are typically not interregional or international VRVS, Video or Phone meetings. This node permits institutional calendars of meetings.) –Working Group Meetings (Meetings listed here are explicitly inter-institution by phone, VRVS or video.) Management Level Area Level Technical Systems Global Systems R&D Detector Design and Physics Study Meetings (regularly scheduled) –Institutes –Groups Workshops & Conferences (ILC Specific: Both Machine, Detector & Physics) –2005-12-10 TTC Frascati meeting –2006-01-11 Boulder Simulation Workshop –2006-03-09 Bangalore LCWS and GDE Meeting –2006-04-nn DOE Review of ILC R&D –2006-07-19 Vancouver GDE Meeting –2006-11-03 Valencia ECFA Physics Workshop and GDE Meeting Lectures, Talks (at non-ILC specific conferences, Machine, Detectors & Physics) –2005-12-23 Tor Raubenheimer presentation to DOE committee investigating accelerator R&D –2006-02-14 ILC Overview talk by Barry Barish at 2006 Aspen Winter Conference –2006-06 Chris A. at EPAC

10. Tom Markiewicz 10 / 13 Proposed “Institution” Tree Structure Institutional Meetings –Cornell –FNAL –SLAC L-Band RF in ESB –2006-01-09 –2006-01-23 PES Progress Warm L-Band Structure Meetings SLAC ILC R&D Updates NLCTA 9:30 Meetings (?) ILC “Exec Meetings” ILC “All Hands” Meetings Miscellaneous –2006 ILC Safety Review

11. Tom Markiewicz 11 / 13 Proposed “Group” Tree Structure Management Level –Change Control Board –Design & Costing Board –R&D Board –GDE Executive Committee –Weekly Phone meetings –Gang of 4 meetings –Other regular meetings –EDMS Selection Committee Meeting –FALC Meetings Area Level –e- Source General Photocathode Gun Laser –e+ Source General Undulator Target –DR General Lattice Cost –RTML General –Linac General Cryomodules RF Costs –BDS General IR Magnets Technical Systems –Accelerator Physics LET Lattices Parameters –Vacuum Systems General –Magnet Systems General –Cryomodules General –Cavity Package General –RF Power General –Instrumentation General –Dumps & Collimators General Dumps Global Systems –Commissioning, Operations & Reliability General –Control System General –Cryogenics General –Civil, Facilities & Services (CFS) General –Installation General R&D –ATF Based General –ATF2 General –ESA Based General –FONT General bi-weekly meeting –TTF based General –Vibration Studies (currently SLAC, BNL, LAPP) General

12. Tom Markiewicz 12 / 13 Next Steps for InDiCo InDiCo as a EASY example of kind of effort required of ILC people for other parts of EDMS –Beta testers –Administrators of nodes –Group and user management Accept Thomas Baron “offer” –Decide on tree, implement & begin use by beta testers –Push CERN/Baron on search features currently in “CDS Agenda” but not yet in InDiCo & any other desired features (output formats, search terms, etc. ) –Implement Bangalore in InDiCo –Begin transfer of past meeting files Nobu has volunteered to do KEK & CCB relevant files Understand how InDiCo can be “backed up” into both DESY EDMS or CERN EDMS

13. Tom Markiewicz 13 / 13 Next Steps for EDMS Decide if Document Management should be separate from EDMS (for now) or part of it by considering pros & cons of CERN Doc Server –If decide to adopt, begin implementation plan similar to that of InDiCo –NB: Lars in particular thinks this statement is too strong & certainly depends on if CDS can handle BCD/RDR Continue working on requirements document Continue to try to gain working knowledge (as opposed to “sales pitch” knowledge) of CDS, Team Center & CERN EDMS

14. Frascati Slides Follow

15. Tom Markiewicz 15 / 13 Committee Members John Ferguson – CERN Lars Hagge - DESY Tom Markiewicz - SLAC (Chair) Richard Stanek - FNAL Nobu Toge - KEK Harry Weerts - Argonne

16. Tom Markiewicz 16 / 13 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.

17. Tom Markiewicz 17 / 13 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.

18. Tom Markiewicz 18 / 13 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.

19. Tom Markiewicz 19 / 13 Web Page http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?id=ilc_dms_selection: ilc_dms_selection_home

20. Tom Markiewicz 20 / 13 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 1 st 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

21. Tom Markiewicz 21 / 13 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.

22. Tom Markiewicz 22 / 13 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

23. Tom Markiewicz 23 / 13 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.

24. Tom Markiewicz 24 / 13 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, ILC- subarea, technical system, etc.

25. Tom Markiewicz 25 / 13 CERN Document Server (CDSware) 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.: –MeIND - HBZ NRW, Cologne, DEMeIND –EPFL Infoscience - EPFL, CHEPFL Infoscience – CAB UNIME – Uni.of Messina, ITCAB UNIME –Aristotle Uni of Thessaloniki, GRAristotle Uni of Thessaloniki –UCL Document Server – Uni catholique de Louvain, BEUCL Document Server At CERN, more than 500 collections: –Open Access protocol compliancy –All types of documents –Public or private collections –200,000 queries/month; ~1M records Future search engine for Indico http://cdsware.cern.ch

26. Tom Markiewicz 26 / 13 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

27. Tom Markiewicz 27 / 13 Team Center EDMS 3D Interactive Visualization for Non-CAD-Users Product Lifecycle Mgmt EDMS core system lifecycles database srvr native user i/f admin i/f … web interface 3D CAD interface web interface with reduced functionality web services reviewer author reader CAD-1 (I-DEAS) CAD-2 (SolidEdge, others) engineer my web webmaster Different EDMS clients for different target groups:eg. xfel.desy.de

28. Tom Markiewicz 28 / 13 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, $nB- decade long project with many of the “bugs” inherent in any out-of- the-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

29. Tom Markiewicz 29 / 13 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

30. Tom Markiewicz 30 / 13 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

31. Tom Markiewicz 31 / 13 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

32. Tom Markiewicz 32 / 13 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?

33. Tom Markiewicz 33 / 13 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

34. Tom Markiewicz 34 / 13 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