Research Network Discussion


Aus-VO Workshop 2003

chair: Rachel Webster

actions: Rachel to put seed funding proposal on the web

1. e-Astronomy seed funding bid

  • Rachel's powerpoint slide
  • seed funding web page (~wtham/seed/home.htm)

2. range of astro-related bids

  • Rachel's powerpoint slide

3. rules of engagement

  • ditto.


  • Sarah Maddison - n seed funds > 50, lower value
  • Sarah - Vicki Sara comments that astro is already well networked
  • Elaine - research priorities: do we fit in?
  • Brian - not clear r/priorities focus is working from Mike Sargent (sp?)
  • Ray - referees get asked to comment on n/priority alignment, so ticking box not all that matters!

4. questions:

  • Rachel's powerpoint slide

q1 what would we spend 500 k/yr on?

  • Anne Green - salaries for comp sci support?
  • Rachel - that's Aus-VO money
  • Brian - only salary available for network coordinator
  • Elaine/Brian - bring internatnl people over
  • Michael D. - support to get to meetings, or use AG, teach relief etc.
  • Neil/Ray - technology for networking (AG, ...)
  • Rachel - e-Science courses at NeSC? in Edinburgh
  • Tara - agrees - are very good - bring person over!
  • Peter Lamb - not sure if NeSC? is funded to teach us
  • Rachel - Neil Geddes encouraging on this aspect and encourages participation in specific projects UK eSci
  • Neil - outreach to other communities
  • Rachel - "small grants scheme" - eg. summer students
  • Sarah - call it a "training program"
  • Elaine reminds us that guidelines still unknown!
  • Wim Brouw - felt from Vicki Sara that they DO want to put meat in, ie. real people, a "kernel" of connectivity.
  • Paul Francis - links (eg. joint symposia, sabbaticals) with comp sci groups & astro groups
  • Anne Green - what about hardware? few comments about it being cheap but people expensive.
  • David B - what about money for b/width?

q2 what is the ideal structure?

  • 2 positions: coordinator (real work) and PI (figurehead?)
  • Brian asks how AstroGrid? / NVO / CVO are administered?
  • Bob - NVO - 20 organisations, some unfunded, 8% budget on management & admin, mostly salary to project manager, very lightweight. NVO have an exec. committee, weekly telecons, senior reps from many of the orgs, plus externals.
  • Neil asks if weekly meeting is fine-grained. What is role?
  • review priorities for activities, budget, progress reports from projects.
  • David Schade - "undistributed" : at CADC. David is head of CADC & sciene lead on CVO and project manager CVO. In-house and managed like any other CADC project. CVO key to future for CADC. Distributed by international links.
  • Brian - suggests exec. controlling Aus-VO effort overall, one role is to oversee the RN, and identify new collab. opportunities.
  • Neil asks which is broader: e-Astronomy or Aus-VO?
  • Brian feels Aus-VO overarching; David B, Neil think RN more general?
  • Ron (back to first qn) suggests putting aside money to hire a "Bob Hanisch" to set up and run the network. Or even The Bob Hanisch :-)
  • Dave McConnell? - back to Aus-VO / e-Astronomy. Several people unclear on difference. This needs to be clarified, soon!

q3 include all Austrn. astro groups?

  • Wim: what if ARC says you will have "one Australian astronomy network"?
  • no real response here.

q4 other relevant comp sci groups?

  • David B - Pragma, OzGrid? forum, international: NCSA, SCSC, other VOs?
  • Bob points out it works the other way too. Where does Aus-VO and/or RN contribute explicitly to IVOA and international science scene.

q5 incl. exp. partical px, theoretical?

  • Ray wonders about geoscience. Similar stuff to us. Proposal for Australian e-Science in WA - 1/3rd VO!!! Curtin, UWa, CSIRO, says want to include wider VO community.
  • Ron comments on Medical Science people saying that "you VO guys are doing fantastic stuff" - show us how! So what about a link out to this sort of community?
  • Brian - really feels Aus-VO should drive what we do in e-Astronomy.
  • Anne wonders if broadening affects r/priority areas.
  • Brian cautions against solving medical problems!
  • Vince asks Peter Lamb what communities he has spoken to about CMIS work and what response he's had. Peter responds that there is a reasonable level of interest at CCGrid conference and also within CMIS.
  • Tara: doesn't perceive any cross-fertilization between bio-info and astro.
  • Peter says there is a lot of common ground.
  • Bob says some approach from ocean science, not successful.
  • David Schade says CVO "sucked in" to oceanography project. Feels they are behind.
  • Michael D. says they have grant money at UQ ONLY for cross-disc. work.
  • Ron points out that just the act of giving a talk to other fields works fine by possibly helping on grant reviews.
  • David Schade says they go before a multi-disc. committee for all grants and reviews.

HOW to proceed?

  • writing workshop?
  • 1 AccessGrid meeting?

-- David Barnes - 17 Nov 2003