Skip to main content

D0 Data preservation task force

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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

OWASP Top 10 Threats and Mitigations Exam - Single Select

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 checking a shared sec

CKA Simulator Kubernetes 1.22

  https://killer.sh Pre Setup Once you've gained access to your terminal it might be wise to spend ~1 minute to setup your environment. You could set these: alias k = kubectl                         # will already be pre-configured export do = "--dry-run=client -o yaml"     # k get pod x $do export now = "--force --grace-period 0"   # k delete pod x $now Vim To make vim use 2 spaces for a tab edit ~/.vimrc to contain: set tabstop=2 set expandtab set shiftwidth=2 More setup suggestions are in the tips section .     Question 1 | Contexts Task weight: 1%   You have access to multiple clusters from your main terminal through kubectl contexts. Write all those context names into /opt/course/1/contexts . Next write a command to display the current context into /opt/course/1/context_default_kubectl.sh , the command should use kubectl . Finally write a second command doing the same thing into /opt/course/1/context_default_no_kubectl.sh , but without the use of k

标 题: 关于Daniel Guo 律师

发信人: q123452017 (水天一色), 信区: I140 标  题: 关于Daniel Guo 律师 关键字: Daniel Guo 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Apr 26 02:11:35 2018, 美东) 这些是lz根据亲身经历在 Immigration版上发的帖以及一些关于Daniel Guo 律师的回 帖,希望大家不要被一些马甲帖广告帖所骗,慎重考虑选择律师。 WG 和Guo两家律师对比 1. fully refund的合约上的区别 wegreened家是case不过只要第二次没有file就可以fully refund。郭家是要两次case 没过才给refund,而且只要第二次pl draft好律师就可以不退任何律师费。 2. 回信速度 wegreened家一般24小时内回信。郭律师是在可以快速回复的时候才回复很快,对于需 要时间回复或者是不愿意给出确切答复的时候就回复的比较慢。 比如:lz问过郭律师他们律所在nsc区域最近eb1a的通过率,大家也知道nsc现在杀手如 云,但是郭律师过了两天只回复说让秘书update最近的case然后去网页上查,但是上面 并没有写明tsc还是nsc。 lz还问过郭律师关于准备ps (他要求的文件)的一些问题,模版上有的东西不是很清 楚,但是他一般就是把模版上的东西再copy一遍发过来。 3. 材料区别 (推荐信) 因为我只收到郭律师写的推荐信,所以可以比下两家推荐信 wegreened家推荐信写的比较长,而且每封推荐信会用不同的语气和风格,会包含lz写 的research summary里面的某个方面 郭家四封推荐信都是一个格式,一种语气,连地址,信的称呼都是一样的,怎么看四封 推荐信都是同一个人写出来的。套路基本都是第一段目的,第二段介绍推荐人,第三段 某篇或几篇文章的abstract,最后结论 4. 前期材料准备 wegreened家要按照他们的模版准备一个十几页的research summary。 郭律师在签约之前说的是只需要准备五页左右的summary,但是在lz签完约收到推荐信 ,郭律师又发来一个很长的ps要lz自己填,而且和pl的格式基本差不多。 总结下来,申请自己上心最重要。但是如果选律师,lz更倾向于wegreened,