Folder: GENERAL From: denisovd@fnal.gov Subject: D0 Data preservation task force Date: 21-JUN-2012 17:46 Expires: 19-SEP-2012 17:46
Dear DZero Colleagues, Data preservation is an important part of our activities to assure long term productive use of the unique Tevatron/DZero data. We assembled task force to provide written recommendations by the end of the summer. The charge for the task force is summarized below and we would like to ask all collaboration members to help task force with developing optimal strategy. Gregorio and Dmitri. Task force membership: Varnes (Chair), Diesburg, Li, Greenlee, Ginther, Schwanenberger, Watts. Charge for the D0 Data Preservation Task Force The Tevatron collider data provided a wealth of excellent results over the past three decades. Tevatron proton-antiproton collisions at 2 TeV will not be reproduced in the foreseeable future, so it is important to continue to extract physics results from this unique data set and to be able to test future discoveries or new theoretical ideas compatible with the Tevatron configuration. The D0 Collaboration plans to preserve the capability to perform data analysis on the full Run II data set, meaning that any member of the collaboration should be able to access the data in the future. The preservation will extend as long as D0 collaborators perform data analysis and items to preserve include documentation, reconstruction and simulation software, analysis level software and data. Options for the following phase with D0 data entering the public domain for purposes including education and outreach should be explored. The charge to the task force is to investigate options for data preservation based on the above guidelines, and the outcome of the on-line data preservation task force (2011), and to propose specific implementation plans. The task force is expected to report periodically to the spokespersons, present status of the progress at the Lancaster D0 Workshop (July 2012) and submit a written report describing the plan by August 29 2012. The points to be addressed in the report are: 1. What to preserve: Develop a detailed list of what must be preserved: what documentation, data, hardware and software to maintain the capability of analyzing D0 data. This includes detector and triggers related data, databases, raw and processed data, Monte Carlo simulation, software, D0 Notes, agenda server presentations, D0 specific hardware and other necessary items. Producing physics results should be doable in a similar way as it is now despite the expected diminishing support and reduced availability of experts. Options to simplify the analysis process should be investigated and benchmark analyses to be performed with the current and future analysis systems should be defined, to ensure verification of the future analysis chain. 2. How to preserve: Propose technical solutions of preservation to achieve goals listed above and compare them in case several approaches exist. Compare to already existing systems and examine how we could profit from similar efforts by other collaborating members of Data Preservation in HEP efforts. 3. When to preserve: Develop actions list to achieve data preservation goals which contains a description of all technical steps as well as schedule and resources required. After the delivery of the report and its review and approval by the D0 collaboration, members of the task force will participate in the implementation of the D0 data preservation plan.
Last updated 4 Aug 11 Course Title: OWASP Top 10 Threats and Mitigation Exam Questions - Single Select 1) Which of the following consequences is most likely to occur due to an injection attack? Spoofing Cross-site request forgery Denial of service Correct Insecure direct object references 2) Your application is created using a language that does not support a clear distinction between code and data. Which vulnerability is most likely to occur in your application? Injection Correct Insecure direct object references Failure to restrict URL access Insufficient transport layer protection 3) Which of the following scenarios is most likely to cause an injection attack? Unvalidated input is embedded in an instruction stream. Correct Unvalidated input can be distinguished from valid instructions. A Web application does not validate a client’s access to a resource. A Web action performs an operation on behalf of the user without checkin...
Comments
Post a Comment
https://gengwg.blogspot.com/