Skip to content Skip to navigation

"January 2019 Use Cases & Capability Delivery Plans" Rating

Login to view assessment questions and vote if eligible.

We asked the UREP to rate the usefulness of each of the following use cases and their proposed Capability Delivery Plans (CDPs) at the beginning of 2019 to assess their importance. These were features requested by XSEDE stakeholders during 2018. The results will guide our work during 2019.

The UREP used the following rating scale.

5 star - XSEDE should do this. (high priority)
4 star - XSEDE should do this. (normal priority)
3 star - XSEDE should do this. (low priority)
2 star - XSEDE should not do this. (maybe)
1 star - XSEDE should not do this. (definitely)

Prioritized ItemAverage RatingIndividual Ratings
DM-11: Post-allocation data access on XSEDE SP resources
(Capability Delivery Plan)

This use case was identified during 2018 when user support requests revealed a "weak spot" in the XSEDE user experience. It's not uncommon for researchers to need to access the data produced during an allocation after the allocation expires. (Typically, to move it to campus systems or follow-on systems for archiving and/or subsequent analysis.) But when an allocation expires, the user credentials associated with it expire immediately. XSEDE's common data transfer mechanisms rely on these credentials, so those mechanisms are no longer available to the researcher. Each XSEDE service provider has an alternate mechanism, but it's a hassle for researchers to learn and/or configure a new mechanism. This use case describes the need for continued availability of the common XSEDE data transfer services for a period after an allocation expires.

4.2 of 5 stars
(19 votes)
5 star (12)
63%
63%
4 star (2)
11%
11%
3 star (2)
11%
11%
2 star (2)
11%
11%
1 star (1)
5%
5%
no vote (0)
0%
0%
SPI-07: Enable a research community to install software on a resource
(Capability Delivery Plan)

These four use cases, RC-03, RC-04, SPI-07, and SPI-08, are about Community Software Areas (CSAs), and you may rate them as a set (provide the same rating for all four) if you don't have time to read each individually.

When a new resource appears in XSEDE, it's typical for research communities to install software specific to their field of study on the resource so researchers in their field can use a common installation. This is currently handled uniquely for each XSEDE resource. There isn't a common process or procedure, even to discover how to approach a given resource about its CSA. The two RC use cases describe what researchers need: standard processes for approaching new resources about CSAs and discovering what's already available in CSAs. The two SPI use cases describe what service providers need: standard processes for documenting CSAs on resources (contact info, rules, etc.) and for publishing what's already available in a CSA.

The proposed work involves multiple XSEDE teams (user services, XCI, SPs) and is likely to require 2-4 weeks of total effort, with the majority being cross-team coordination and design/implementation of changes to the XSEDE website and/or XUP.

4.1 of 5 stars
(19 votes)
5 star (7)
37%
37%
4 star (7)
37%
37%
3 star (5)
26%
26%
2 star (0)
0%
0%
1 star (0)
0%
0%
no vote (0)
0%
0%
RC-04: Find where a specific application or service is available within the system
(Capability Delivery Plan)

These four use cases, RC-03, RC-04, SPI-07, and SPI-08, are about Community Software Areas (CSAs), and you may rate them as a set (provide the same rating for all four) if you don't have time to read each individually.

When a new resource appears in XSEDE, it's typical for research communities to install software specific to their field of study on the resource so researchers in their field can use a common installation. This is currently handled uniquely for each XSEDE resource. There isn't a common process or procedure, even to discover how to approach a given resource about its CSA. The two RC use cases describe what researchers need: standard processes for approaching new resources about CSAs and discovering what's already available in CSAs. The two SPI use cases describe what service providers need: standard processes for documenting CSAs on resources (contact info, rules, etc.) and for publishing what's already available in a CSA.

The proposed work involves multiple XSEDE teams (user services, XCI, SPs) and is likely to require 2-4 weeks of total effort, with the majority being cross-team coordination and design/implementation of changes to the XSEDE website and/or XUP.

4.1 of 5 stars
(19 votes)
5 star (6)
32%
32%
4 star (8)
42%
42%
3 star (5)
26%
26%
2 star (0)
0%
0%
1 star (0)
0%
0%
no vote (0)
0%
0%
SPI-08: Register availability of a specific application or service for use
(Capability Delivery Plan)

These four use cases, RC-03, RC-04, SPI-07, and SPI-08, are about Community Software Areas (CSAs), and you may rate them as a set (provide the same rating for all four) if you don't have time to read each individually.

When a new resource appears in XSEDE, it's typical for research communities to install software specific to their field of study on the resource so researchers in their field can use a common installation. This is currently handled uniquely for each XSEDE resource. There isn't a common process or procedure, even to discover how to approach a given resource about its CSA. The two RC use cases describe what researchers need: standard processes for approaching new resources about CSAs and discovering what's already available in CSAs. The two SPI use cases describe what service providers need: standard processes for documenting CSAs on resources (contact info, rules, etc.) and for publishing what's already available in a CSA.

The proposed work involves multiple XSEDE teams (user services, XCI, SPs) and is likely to require 2-4 weeks of total effort, with the majority being cross-team coordination and design/implementation of changes to the XSEDE website and/or XUP.

3.9 of 5 stars
(19 votes)
5 star (4)
21%
21%
4 star (10)
53%
53%
3 star (5)
26%
26%
2 star (0)
0%
0%
1 star (0)
0%
0%
no vote (0)
0%
0%
RC-03: Install software on a resource for use by a research community
(Capability Delivery Plan)

These four use cases, RC-03, RC-04, SPI-07, and SPI-08, are about Community Software Areas (CSAs), and you may rate them as a set (provide the same rating for all four) if you don't have time to read each individually.

When a new resource appears in XSEDE, it's typical for research communities to install software specific to their field of study on the resource so researchers in their field can use a common installation. This is currently handled uniquely for each XSEDE resource. There isn't a common process or procedure, even to discover how to approach a given resource about its CSA. The two RC use cases describe what researchers need: standard processes for approaching new resources about CSAs and discovering what's already available in CSAs. The two SPI use cases describe what service providers need: standard processes for documenting CSAs on resources (contact info, rules, etc.) and for publishing what's already available in a CSA.

The proposed work involves multiple XSEDE teams (user services, XCI, SPs) and is likely to require 2-4 weeks of total effort, with the majority being cross-team coordination and design/implementation of changes to the XSEDE website and/or XUP.

3.9 of 5 stars
(19 votes)
5 star (5)
26%
26%
4 star (8)
42%
42%
3 star (6)
32%
32%
2 star (0)
0%
0%
1 star (0)
0%
0%
no vote (0)
0%
0%
CB-13: Provide a simple interface to access any of the high-throughput computing queues available to a campus
(Capability Delivery Plan)

The three campus bridging use cases (CB-13, CB-14, and CB-15) describe a "campus queue" service. You may rate these three use cases as a set (provide the same rating for each use case) if you don't have time to review each individually.

The high-level idea is to enable campus IT organizations to build an on-campus queuing service that would provide access to any of the HPC/HTC services available to users at that campus: on-campus HPC, XSEDE HPC, or any others. This would raise awareness of both on-campus and off-campus (XSEDE) services among campus researchers and students, and would leverage the expertise XSEDE SPs have built around queuing services. The XCRI team proposes a first-step of presenting the idea to campus champions and gauging their response.  If the response is favorable, XCRI could proceed with software packaging (est. 2 person-weeks of effort) and then begin engaging specific campuses (est. 4-5 person-days per campus for local integration and training).

3.5 of 5 stars
(19 votes)
5 star (4)
21%
21%
4 star (5)
26%
26%
3 star (8)
42%
42%
2 star (1)
5%
5%
1 star (1)
5%
5%
no vote (0)
0%
0%
DM-09: Search metadata for specific objects of interest
(Capability Delivery Plan)

These six use cases (DM-05 through DM-10, not including DM-11) are about research metadata. You may treat them as a set (provide the same rating for all of them) if you don't have time to review each individually. XSEDE's Requirements Analysis and Capability Delivery team is currently conducting a "technology readiness assessment" to identify tools to support these use cases. The results of the assessment could be used to introduce a set of basic metadata services into the XSEDE community. Please rate the importance of each use case (or the set as a whole) to the XSEDE community.

Background/context: During XSEDE-1 (2011-2016), managing metadata was identified as a significant challenge for XSEDE's "big data" users. XSEDE's research consultants (ECSS) often help researchers find and implement strategies for managing their metadata. But the XSEDE system (User Portal, etc.) provides no specific features for this: researchers must identify their own metadata tools and rely on others to support those tools. Metadata management would be a significant "new feature" for the XSEDE system.

3.5 of 5 stars
(19 votes)
5 star (3)
16%
16%
4 star (8)
42%
42%
3 star (6)
32%
32%
2 star (0)
0%
0%
1 star (2)
11%
11%
no vote (0)
0%
0%
DM-05: Manually create metadata for a data object
(Capability Delivery Plan)

These six use cases (DM-05 through DM-10, not including DM-11) are about research metadata. You may treat them as a set (provide the same rating for all of them) if you don't have time to review each individually. XSEDE's Requirements Analysis and Capability Delivery team is currently conducting a "technology readiness assessment" to identify tools to support these use cases. The results of the assessment could be used to introduce a set of basic metadata services into the XSEDE community. Please rate the importance of each use case (or the set as a whole) to the XSEDE community.

Background/context: During XSEDE-1 (2011-2016), managing metadata was identified as a significant challenge for XSEDE's "big data" users. XSEDE's research consultants (ECSS) often help researchers find and implement strategies for managing their metadata. But the XSEDE system (User Portal, etc.) provides no specific features for this: researchers must identify their own metadata tools and rely on others to support those tools. Metadata management would be a significant "new feature" for the XSEDE system.

3.4 of 5 stars
(18 votes)
5 star (3)
16%
16%
4 star (6)
32%
32%
3 star (6)
32%
32%
2 star (1)
5%
5%
1 star (2)
11%
11%
no vote (1)
5%
5%
CB-15: Develop an application or gateway that submits tasks to any of the high-throughput computing queues available to a campus
(Capability Delivery Plan)

The three campus bridging use cases (CB-13, CB-14, and CB-15) describe a "campus queue" service. You may rate these three use cases as a set (provide the same rating for each use case) if you don't have time to review each individually.

The high-level idea is to enable campus IT organizations to build an on-campus queuing service that would provide access to any of the HPC/HTC services available to users at that campus: on-campus HPC, XSEDE HPC, or any others. This would raise awareness of both on-campus and off-campus (XSEDE) services among campus researchers and students, and would leverage the expertise XSEDE SPs have built around queuing services. The XCRI team proposes a first-step of presenting the idea to campus champions and gauging their response.  If the response is favorable, XCRI could proceed with software packaging (est. 2 person-weeks of effort) and then begin engaging specific campuses (est. 4-5 person-days per campus for local integration and training).

3.3 of 5 stars
(19 votes)
5 star (3)
16%
16%
4 star (4)
21%
21%
3 star (8)
42%
42%
2 star (3)
16%
16%
1 star (1)
5%
5%
no vote (0)
0%
0%
CB-14: Submit tasks to any of the high-throughput computing queues available to a campus
(Capability Delivery Plan)

The three campus bridging use cases (CB-13, CB-14, and CB-15) describe a "campus queue" service. You may rate these three use cases as a set (provide the same rating for each use case) if you don't have time to review each individually.

The high-level idea is to enable campus IT organizations to build an on-campus queuing service that would provide access to any of the HPC/HTC services available to users at that campus: on-campus HPC, XSEDE HPC, or any others. This would raise awareness of both on-campus and off-campus (XSEDE) services among campus researchers and students, and would leverage the expertise XSEDE SPs have built around queuing services. The XCRI team proposes a first-step of presenting the idea to campus champions and gauging their response.  If the response is favorable, XCRI could proceed with software packaging (est. 2 person-weeks of effort) and then begin engaging specific campuses (est. 4-5 person-days per campus for local integration and training).

3.3 of 5 stars
(19 votes)
5 star (2)
11%
11%
4 star (5)
26%
26%
3 star (9)
47%
47%
2 star (2)
11%
11%
1 star (1)
5%
5%
no vote (0)
0%
0%
DM-10: Add metadata search features to an application
(Capability Delivery Plan)

These six use cases (DM-05 through DM-10, not including DM-11) are about research metadata. You may treat them as a set (provide the same rating for all of them) if you don't have time to review each individually. XSEDE's Requirements Analysis and Capability Delivery team is currently conducting a "technology readiness assessment" to identify tools to support these use cases. The results of the assessment could be used to introduce a set of basic metadata services into the XSEDE community. Please rate the importance of each use case (or the set as a whole) to the XSEDE community.

Background/context: During XSEDE-1 (2011-2016), managing metadata was identified as a significant challenge for XSEDE's "big data" users. XSEDE's research consultants (ECSS) often help researchers find and implement strategies for managing their metadata. But the XSEDE system (User Portal, etc.) provides no specific features for this: researchers must identify their own metadata tools and rely on others to support those tools. Metadata management would be a significant "new feature" for the XSEDE system.

3.3 of 5 stars
(19 votes)
5 star (2)
11%
11%
4 star (7)
37%
37%
3 star (6)
32%
32%
2 star (2)
11%
11%
1 star (2)
11%
11%
no vote (0)
0%
0%
DM-08: Store metadata for later use
(Capability Delivery Plan)

These six use cases (DM-05 through DM-10, not including DM-11) are about research metadata. You may treat them as a set (provide the same rating for all of them) if you don't have time to review each individually. XSEDE's Requirements Analysis and Capability Delivery team is currently conducting a "technology readiness assessment" to identify tools to support these use cases. The results of the assessment could be used to introduce a set of basic metadata services into the XSEDE community. Please rate the importance of each use case (or the set as a whole) to the XSEDE community.

Background/context: During XSEDE-1 (2011-2016), managing metadata was identified as a significant challenge for XSEDE's "big data" users. XSEDE's research consultants (ECSS) often help researchers find and implement strategies for managing their metadata. But the XSEDE system (User Portal, etc.) provides no specific features for this: researchers must identify their own metadata tools and rely on others to support those tools. Metadata management would be a significant "new feature" for the XSEDE system.

3.3 of 5 stars
(19 votes)
5 star (2)
11%
11%
4 star (7)
37%
37%
3 star (6)
32%
32%
2 star (2)
11%
11%
1 star (2)
11%
11%
no vote (0)
0%
0%
DM-06: Run a researcher-supplied tool to generate metadata for data objects
(Capability Delivery Plan)

These six use cases (DM-05 through DM-10, not including DM-11) are about research metadata. You may treat them as a set (provide the same rating for all of them) if you don't have time to review each individually. XSEDE's Requirements Analysis and Capability Delivery team is currently conducting a "technology readiness assessment" to identify tools to support these use cases. The results of the assessment could be used to introduce a set of basic metadata services into the XSEDE community. Please rate the importance of each use case (or the set as a whole) to the XSEDE community.

Background/context: During XSEDE-1 (2011-2016), managing metadata was identified as a significant challenge for XSEDE's "big data" users. XSEDE's research consultants (ECSS) often help researchers find and implement strategies for managing their metadata. But the XSEDE system (User Portal, etc.) provides no specific features for this: researchers must identify their own metadata tools and rely on others to support those tools. Metadata management would be a significant "new feature" for the XSEDE system.

3.3 of 5 stars
(19 votes)
5 star (2)
11%
11%
4 star (7)
37%
37%
3 star (6)
32%
32%
2 star (2)
11%
11%
1 star (2)
11%
11%
no vote (0)
0%
0%
DM-07: Automatically extract metadata from data objects
(Capability Delivery Plan)

These six use cases (DM-05 through DM-10, not including DM-11) are about research metadata. You may treat them as a set (provide the same rating for all of them) if you don't have time to review each individually. XSEDE's Requirements Analysis and Capability Delivery team is currently conducting a "technology readiness assessment" to identify tools to support these use cases. The results of the assessment could be used to introduce a set of basic metadata services into the XSEDE community. Please rate the importance of each use case (or the set as a whole) to the XSEDE community.

Background/context: During XSEDE-1 (2011-2016), managing metadata was identified as a significant challenge for XSEDE's "big data" users. XSEDE's research consultants (ECSS) often help researchers find and implement strategies for managing their metadata. But the XSEDE system (User Portal, etc.) provides no specific features for this: researchers must identify their own metadata tools and rely on others to support those tools. Metadata management would be a significant "new feature" for the XSEDE system.

3.2 of 5 stars
(19 votes)
5 star (2)
11%
11%
4 star (7)
37%
37%
3 star (5)
26%
26%
2 star (2)
11%
11%
1 star (3)
16%
16%
no vote (0)
0%
0%