Minutes of HEASARC Users Group Meeting
2007 October 15-16
1. Agenda
Monday October 15
8:30am: Coffee/snacks
9:00am: Session start: Introduction, Logistics, etc
9:10am: The Future of the HEASARC (Nick White)
- NRC NASA Data Centers Report
- Restructuring of Archives/GOFs at GSFC and Refocussing of the HEASARC
to be Science-based rather than Wavelength-based
- Upcoming (Spring/Summer 2008) HEASARC proposal to Senior Review
10:10am: NASA HQ Perspective (Jeff Hayes)
10:30am: Break
10:45am: Status of HEASARC Activities at GSFC: Archives Status (incl.
GLAST and Suzaku), usage statistics, and Response to Action Items from
Previous HUG Meeting (Steve Drake)
11:30am: AGILE Archive (Lorella Angelini)
11:45am: Status of HEASARC activities at SAO: CDA, CalDB, ds9, Level 3
products, etc. (Roger Brissenden)
12:15 (-12:45pm): EPO Activities: Cosmic Times, Student Hera,
General Status (Jim Lochner)
[Working Lunch (sandwiches/drinks) will be provided at noon]
12:45pm: Break
1:00pm: FITS standards, FTOOLS, Hera inc. heraSPEC (Bill Pence)
1:30pm: XSPEC status and Future Plans (Keith Arnaud)
1:45pm: Current and future data access at the HEASARC (Tom McGlynn):
- Browse Developments
- NVO Developments
- SkyView
- Other Possible Future Initiatives
2:15pm: General Discussion on the Strategy for HEASARC's 2008 Senior
Review Proposal (Nick White)
[We'll take a 15min break sometime in this discussion]
5:00pm: End of First Day
Tussday April 16
8:30am: Coffee/Snacks
9:00am: General Discussion on Strategy of HEASARC's 2008 Senior
Review Proposal (continued)
10:30am: Break
10:45am: HUG Executive Session
11:30am: HUG Initial Response/Recommendations (Frits Paerels)
12:15pm: End of HUG Meeting
Minutes and Recommendations
HUG Members Present: Derek Fox, Eric Gotthelf (day 2), Julia Lee, Nancy
Levenson, Frits Paerels (Chair), Paul Ray, Gordon Richards, Masao Sako,
Rita Sambruna, Jon Miller. Sarah Gallagher was absent, with notification.
Note: specific recommendations and requests are printed in italics.
The HEASARC Users Group (HUG) met on October 15-16, 2007, at GSFC. It had been
eighteen months since the last HUG meeting; a meeting in the spring of 2007
turned out to meet with severe schedule constraints and could not be held
with a sufficient number of HUG members. Even though it had been more than
a year since the last meeting, the meeting (and therefore this report) was
dominated by discussions concerning the future of the HEASARC, and less
than usual by discussion of technical development and related issues.
First, a few general remarks. We want to express our appreciation for the
excellent job the HEASARC is doing. As usual, the members agreed that the
HEASARC performs a vital service, and performs it extremely well. We also
much appreciate its forward-looking attitude, which now extends to
initiatives related to an expansion of its role, both along the traditional
wavelength bands as well as in the direction of greater intellectual cohesion
in astrophysical space research.
We note with pleasure the response to our previous recommendations and
queries. One specific request (that the RXTE Good Xe data be made more easily
accessible) was considered, but was put off pending recommendations by the
RXTE Users Group, since the reformatting involved would exceed the available
RXTE GOF manpower. The HUG understands and agrees with this approach.
We first heard a presentation by the director, Nick White, concerning the
general status of the HEASARC, a reorganization of the Astrophysics Science
Division at GSFC, and the (re-)institution of a theme-based structure to
astrophysics at NASA. This raised questions of a general nature, and comments
were invited by Nick, which we will discuss below after the discussion of the
archive and software- specific presentations.
We then heard a presentation
by Jeff Hayes, on organizational and funding issues related to astrophysics
at NASA HQ.
With respect to the redesign of the ADP (Astrophysics Data Program), we
recommend that it has an appropriate mix of grant sizes, enabling both
specific, targeted investigations that typically run for one year and
require on the order of $50 K to complete, as well as multi-year,
comprehensive investigations. Members are concerned that the small
projects may not receive adequate funding if their importance is not
explicitly recognized by management and peer reviews. The members also
endorse the removal of as many restrictions as possible on the proposed
investigations (such as requirements that a project be based on data from
at least N1 observatories from the list of N2 missions; or that it not
use data from certain missions).
We then heard presentations on specific archives and software, and on the
HEASARC-related work at SAO (see agenda). Our comments and recommendations
follow:
The Suzaku archive has opened, but we are concerned about the status of the
analysis software. Numerous important analysis tasks appear to be not yet
ready for use. The HEASARC is aware of this, and the issue will be taken
up by the Suzaku Users Group (meeting in December; HUG member Jon Miller is
Chair of the SUG and takes note).
We support the HEASARC acquiring a copy of the AGILE archive. We did raise
the question of funding for US AGILE Guest Investigators (there currently is
none). While it is technically possible to propose for observations, waive
proprietary data rights, and then apply to the ADP for analysis funding,
this is an awkward situation. NASA should consider the establishment of
a funded GO program.
The HUG is very enthusiastic about recent DS9 developments (one of which,
the compatibility with Mac/OS X, was tested by several members immediately
during Roger Brissenden's presentation, and found to be entirely
satisfactory).
We were, again, very impressed with the E/PO program, and we would like to
express our continuing strong support for this effort. We commend its leader,
Jim Lochner, for his work.
We noted the various developments in the HEASOFT software, with one specific
recommendation: that a Python interface to FITS be maintained. This could
be as simple as maintaining and enhancing the existing interface, pyfits.py.
Also, any such package should be compatible with the "numpy" numerical Python
package, which seems to have become the standard for numerical python.
We noted the various developments in XSPEC. We have a number of specific
recommendations and requests:
If possible, reduce the dependence of the spectral model software on the
specific structure of the XSPEC environment, such that the model code can be
used stand-alone for the construction of new spectral modeling code for
general astrophysical purposes, not related to fitting with XSPEC, and
alternative fitting procedures. A set of specific suggestions, as well
as Keith Arnaud's initial response to these, is reproduced in the
Appendix
(an email from Julia Lee).
We strongly endorse Keith's plans for rewriting the XSPEC manual.
Specifically, we think that the idea of having the documentation
grow and expand by direct involvement of the user community, possibly through
a Wiki, is very good. The HEASARC should investigate the practical
feasibility of this idea, which would involve outside user access to
NASA computers (and which should therefore perhaps materially be implemented
differently).
We noted the 'Astrogravs' work (analysis of
gravitational wave signals from BH-BH coalescence events) with interest.
In this context: we support the HEASARC becoming the
primary archive for any future gravitational wave data (and LIGO data,
if it ever became public), in line with the position of the HEASARC as
the primary archive for data related to NASA's 'Physics of the Cosmos'
theme.
XSPEC should be checked (numerical accuracy) and possibly adapted for use
over very large dynamic ranges in photon energy (such as involved, for
instance, in simultaneous analysis of X-ray and GLAST data).
The development of a multi-core version of the XSPEC software receives
strong support from the HUG.
We heard a presentation on Current and Future Data Access at the HEASARC
(Tom McGlynn). Tom raised the question as to whether the standard Browse
interface should be rewritten. The HUG reaction to this was cautious: we
understand the reasons for having to rewrite it, but given the size of
the effort, we would like to see a more developed proposal for the rewrite,
and if and how it interacts or is driven by NVO development, with a timeline,
before we comment in detail. However, given the timetable for the submission
of the proposal to the Senior Review in Spring 2008, since Browse is at
the heart of the HEASARC's existence, and it and similar pieces of the
software will have to be maintained no matter how, continued funding of
development for this software is justified. We agree with the HEASARC
director that his work should be included explicitly in the proposal
and it should be included as an item in the budget submitted to the
Senior Review (either explicitly or implicitly). This recommendation
effectively constitutes a cautious 'go ahead' endorsement.
Our comments on Nick's presentation on issues related to the current and
future status of the HEASARC and the Senior Review, which opened the day,
are below.
1. Change to a theme-based structure for NASA Astrophysics research
Jon Morse, the director of the Astrophysics Division in NASAÕs Science
Mission Directorate, has adopted three themes for space research in
astrophysics: Exoplanets, 'Origins', and Physics of the Cosmos. The HEASARC
will aim at becoming the primary archive site for the Physics of the Cosmos
theme (and will be absorbing the microwave background archive, LAMBDA, for
instance). The HUG is generally happy with the return of the theme-based
structure; among other things, it will strengthen the position of the
HEASARC which will no longer be based on a wavelength- or photon-energy
derived criterion, but on an intellectually more compelling one. This will
make its position more robust and flexible. We also endorse the associated
overhaul of the org chart for the Astrophysics Science Division at GSFC,
with the HEASARC assuming a central position (see presentation of Nick White).
Nick invited us to think about a possible alternative or parallel structure to
the space astrophysics archives, based on Ideas, Issues, and Problems: 'What
is the nature of Dark Energy?' 'Basic properties of Black Holes?', rather
than the classical division by wavelength.
Our initial reaction is that this is an interesting idea; it would certainly
establish links between disciplines, from which high energy astrophysics can
only benefit (by drawing in researchers from other wavelength bands). However,
we are unsure about how deep into the actual structure
of the archive such a change should reach, and how it would be established.
For one thing, it should always remain possible to use the archive as it
is being used now: searchable by the classical descriptive categories such
as instrument, object, position, wavelength, etc.
Derek Fox points out that such a 'conceptual' dimension to the archive could
(or should ?) be developed organically by the community itself. He points to
the example of the photography sharing website Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/),
where the users establish links by posting tags. This 'tagging' could start
(or trickle down) to the proposal level, where researchers can establish a
characterization of their own invention (as opposed to a fixed menu of
categories. Notice the very limited and restrictive nature of the lists of
'keywords' currently in use by journals).
The HUG members all agreed that trying to establish a 'conceptual' dimension
to the archive by imposing a structure defined by committee or a single
person who 'maintains' this structure is doomed to fail.
Another possible development would be the establishment of a 'My HEASARC'
page, with user-defined links and environment, which could also be the
starting point for setting up a user tagging system. We recommend that the
HEASARC look into this possibility, and into the possible practical problems
associated with having outside users modify NASA-maintained information.
2. The 2008 Senior Review
Nick invites the HUG members to help preparing the
proposal for this review. He asks for specific examples of scientific
successes based on use of the HEASARC, which HUG members promise they will
think about. As a special challenge, we will try to think of a good example
that emphasizes the software development work of the HEASARC (as opposed to
a result just based on the archived data).
3. The HUG Compiled List of Strengths and Weaknesses of the HEASARC
Strengths (not in any specific order):
- The software is extensive and comprehensive; the archive is very
homogeneous.
- The HEASARC has excellent responsiveness (both of the helpdesk type and of
the development initiative type). The quality of service is very high.
- HEASARC indeed provides access to an entire discipline! (High Energy
Astrophysics)
- The HEASARC very effectively ensures continuity: data from past missions
remains accessible.
- Data retrieval is extremely efficient (retrieval times are measured in
seconds or at most hours). The entire archive is effectively online.
- HEASARC's development of common software standards is extremely important
(and has probably already led to significant savings).
- The E/PO program is extremely effective
- The support of peer reviews through the RPS system is very effective.
A summary statement might read as follows:
"The HEASARC is a model of what the Science Archives should look like:
comprehensive, alive, and oriented towards the future".
Weaknesses:
- The HUG is concerned that the HEASARC cannot guarantee that the staff gets
the 25% of their time to do research. This is vital to the health and
effectiveness of HEASARC.
- 'Marketing' of sometimes very sophisticated features is not well developed.
HEASARC should 'educate' its users more actively.
4. New Initiatives
Nick solicited items for new initiatives. A list of suggestions follows:
- A 'MyHEASARC' page
- An XSPEC Wiki
- Get the full IPN catalog from Kevin Hurley (current catalog only contains
positional information on fully localized bursts, not on all bursts)
- It was suggested that the "fxbary" be extended so that it can correct TOA's
for ground-based observeratories (optical and TeV gamma-ray, for example).
Wrap-up
This was the last HUG meeting for Julia Lee and Nancy Levenson. We thank them
for their service. This will also likely be the last meeting with Nick White
as HEASARC director. The HUG expresses its gratitude to Nick for his dedicated
service, and looks forward to working with his successor.
If needed, we will try to have a meeting around the time the proposal for the
Senior Review has to be submitted (for example, two weeks prior to the
submission date. NB: dates for the archives Senior Review: May 13/14/15, 2008,
with the proposal due [WHEN? First Week April?] ), so we can comment on it. If
that is not needed (or impossible to schedule), we will have our next meeting
in about a year from now, October 2008.
HEASARC Home |
Observatories |
Archive |
Calibration |
Software |
Tools |
Students/Teachers/Public
Last modified: Friday, 02-Nov-2007 09:40:19 EDT
|