Re: FDSN Backbone
Rhett Butler
In anticipation of discussions at Working Group 1 at our upcoming
meeting in South Africa (6 months away), I am proposing to expand the
size of the FDSN Backbone, with the addition of 35 globally
distributed real-time GSN stations (list attached). These stations are
currently available at the FDSN Data Center with documented metadata
and open real-time access.
I welcome discussion and other recommendations of stations from FDSN
Networks.
Best regards,
Rhett
On Aug 13, 2007, at 8:07 PM, Pawel Wiejacz wrote:
> Dear Rhett,
>
> I haven't been to Perugia nor Santiago but to my opinion:
>> "• Should the FDSN backbone of high quality stations be increased
>> from 200 to perhaps 300?"
> Definitely. I would increase it from 200 to 400 so 300 looks a good
> compromise with those who do not wish increase.
>
>> "On the topic of the FDSN backbone the issues to be considered were
>> the expansion of the backbone in terms of the number of stations, the
>> goal of making this a real time network, maintain the high quality of
>> the network and to insure that the FDSN backbone was properly
>> documented with metadata in FDSN SEED format. This issue was referred
>> to the WG I for consideration.
> Maintain it a high quality network with documented metadata. Most of
> these
> stations are real time within some network. Why should FDSN get into
> the business that someone else is already doing? As of new stations,
> non-real time stations should not get accepted into the increased
> pool,
> as of existing non-real-time stations: if technical or financial
> barriers have
> prevented a local/national operator from making the station real-
> time, how
> FDSN expects to do that? Buy equipment or pay for data transmission on
> behalf of some foreign operator? Unrealistic.
>
>> "Working Group I issues discussed lead the Excom to recommend that
>> the expansion of the FDSN backbone is a desirable thing especially
>> when one considers all of the new members. Each member should
>> designate at least one new station to be become part of the FDSN
>> network. The focus of the backbone is still to be broadband when
>> possible, geographically appropriate and if possible a station that
>> delivers data in real time."
> I agree with this.
>
> Pawel Wiejacz
> Inst of Geophysics Polish Academy of Sciences.
On Aug 13, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Rhett Butler wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I enjoyed our meetings in Perugia and fellowship after hours.
>
> There has not been a review/update of the FDSN Backbone in many
> years, and WG1 discussed the consideration of additional sites.
>
> At the minutes of our meeting in Santiago, there was discussion of
> increasing the size of the Backbone:
>
> "• Should the FDSN backbone of high quality stations be increased
> from 200 to perhaps 300?"
>
> "On the topic of the FDSN backbone the issues to be considered were
> the expansion of the backbone in terms of the number of stations,
> the goal of making this a real time network, maintain the high
> quality of the network and to insure that the FDSN backbone was
> properly documented with metadata in FDSN SEED format. This issue
> was referred to the WG I for consideration.
>
> "Working Group I issues discussed lead the Excom to recommend that
> the expansion of the FDSN backbone is a desirable thing especially
> when one considers all of the new members. Each member should
> designate at least one new station to be become part of the FDSN
> network. The focus of the backbone is still to be broadband when
> possible, geographically appropriate and if possible a station that
> delivers data in real time."
>
>
> In the spirit of the discussions and with an interest in soliciting
> ideas from other Networks, I have reviewed the current contribution
> of the GSN to the FDSN Backbone. In the attached spreadsheet
> (information is from the FDSN station list), I submit 27 stations
> for consideration within an expanded FDSN Backbone. All of the sites
> have or will have open real-time data.
>
> The USGS has 5 of 9 new GSN sites in the Caribbean are completed,
> all will have open, real-time data. It may be of interest to
> consider these sites for the Backbone.
>
> There are a number of additional GSN sites in the US which are not
> proposed.
>
> I am receptive to your perspective and comment.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rhett
>
> <for FDSN Backbone.xls>_______________________________________________
> fdsn-wg1-stations mailing list
> fdsn-wg1...@iris.washington.edu
> http://www.iris.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/fdsn-wg1-stations
Seiji Tsuboi
Thank you very much for your email regarded with the FDSN backbone discussion.
I was asked by Torild last June to start discussion on the definition of FDSN
backbone network, which was originated through IRIS-DMC - ORFEUS coordination
meeting. I am sorry that I forgot to send email on this issue to the WG-1
mailing list. I would be grateful if those who have ideas for updated
definitions of FDSN backbone network would send their ideas to this mailing list
now. To increase the number of stations should be one of the options that we
should consider. I will update the mailing list as soon as possible, since the
member of the mailing list is somewhat out of date.
Best regards,
Seiji Tsuboi
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fdsn-wg1-sta...@iris.washington.edu
> [mailto:fdsn-wg1-sta...@iris.washington.edu] On Behalf Of Rhett
Butler
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 8:01 AM
> To: fdsn-wg1...@iris.washington.edu
> Subject: Re: [fdsn-wg1-stations] FDSN Backbone
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> In anticipation of discussions at Working Group 1 at our upcoming
> meeting in South Africa (6 months away), I am proposing to expand the
> size of the FDSN Backbone, with the addition of 35 globally
> distributed real-time GSN stations (list attached). These stations are
> currently available at the FDSN Data Center with documented metadata
> and open real-time access.
>
> I welcome discussion and other recommendations of stations from FDSN
> Networks.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rhett
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2007, at 8:07 PM, Pawel Wiejacz wrote:
>
> > Dear Rhett,
> >
> > I haven't been to Perugia nor Santiago but to my opinion:
> >> ". Should the FDSN backbone of high quality stations be increased
> > ". Should the FDSN backbone of high quality stations be increased
Lyons, Jim
I agree with Winfried that the best place to start is to clearly
enunciate the overall purpose of the FDSN backbone network. Is it to be
a one-stop-shop for global seismology? All of these FDSN stations are
freebies, in the sense that none are installed or maintained at FDSN
expense for pure FDSN purposes. They are typically used for
national/regional earthquake monitoring +/- CTBT verification.
A similar question arises with the insistence on real-time access. In
the body of Rhett's e-mail of July 7, I believe Paul Wiejacz observed
that most FDSN stations are already real time within some network. Why
should FDSN get into the business that someone else is already doing?
I am not trying to be unduly negative here. I understand the credo of
network operators everywhere that more and faster is better. But I
would like to work towards an explicit understanding of what it is we
are trying to achieve with the FDSN backbone.
Best regards,
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: fdsn-wg1-sta...@iris.washington.edu
[mailto:fdsn-wg1-sta...@iris.washington.edu] On Behalf Of
Winfried Hanka
Sent: July 9, 2008 03:44
To: Seiji Tsuboi
Cc: fdsn-wg1...@iris.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [fdsn-wg1-stations] FDSN Backbone
Dear Seiji, Rhett and all,
before submitting a concrete proposal for new backbone stations from our
side I would propose to better define the criteria for the selection. We
are installing about 35 new stations around the Indian Ocean (half of
them existing, the rest to be installed until 2010) and I could surely
contribute some of those for the backbone network. But how many more
stations we need e.g. in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Madagascar and Kenya? We
(will) have two stations each in Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Yemen (a 3rd
one on Socotra), Tanzania, Kenya and Madagascar. But how many to select
for the backbone? On Rhett's list most cases are obvious ones. But e.g.
for another station in Germany there no justification from poor
coverage. So to me the criteria are not totally clear yet and before
submitting a proposal I would like to have this clarified. Also if we
select now only among existing stations or also future ones, and if yes,
how far in future?
Regards,
Winfried
Winfried Hanka
Dr. Pawel Wiejacz
I also agree with Winfried and Jim.
The issue seems to me more conceptual than purely scientific.
FDSN as it is consists of a growing number of stations and with so
many stations it is no longer as manageable as it was some time ago.
E.g. if data stops flowing in from some particular station, it is no
longer feasible to look after this and inquire why - especially in
places like Europe where FDSN stations are numerous and one
can find another station from an alternate location fairly nearby.
So - it appears to me - there is this desire to have some stations
designated FDSN-backbone, so that these stations make a
more-or-less uniform global seismic network with some assured
level of data availibility (open to discussion if this availibility level
is to be 95, 98 or 99%).
This matter is not easy. On one hand I do not see a reason why
FDSN should not accept another station that is broadband, low
noise and offering free data. On the other hand I can imagine
someone putting up a dense broadband network on a small area
and offering all its data (e.g. 100 stations) to the FDSN. It is not
the point so that FDSN becomes a free data repository to just
anyone (who e.g. might wish to save money on disk array - keep
the data just on his PC and have a backup copy at the FDSN
for the just-in-case). The line must be drawn somewhere.
It should be the FDSN leaders to decide on this, but to my
opinion the FDSN-backbone network should be much denser
than the CTBTOs. Or the interest in the FDSN-gathered data
will be limited.
Of course one must keep in mind that the CTBTO network is
cunning - it has been constructed with maximum possible station
density that is still more-or-less uniform throughout the world.
So should FDSN go to a greater station density, then naturally
there would be regions where getting a greater station density
than CTBTO shall not be possible. Moreover, FDSN is unlikely
to surpass CTBTOs resolution in areas like Russia or China where
much of the data is restricted; according to the CTBTO treaty
the data is ported to the ISC, but digital data gets then restricted
there at Vienna.
It is a separate question if FDSN should archive all the data or
perhaps use some distributed-archive scheme. But with distributed
archive, the number of data contributors, and lack of funding for
specifically running the distributed-archive at the contributors'
sites - managing a distributed archive may be a problem.
Regards,
Pawel
Rhett Butler
Here are some of my thoughts on the discussions to date. I will follow
with some suggestions for increasing the FDSN Backbone.
Rhett
On Jul 8, 2008, at 9:43 PM, Winfried Hanka wrote:
> Dear Seiji, Rhett and all,
>
> before submitting a concrete proposal for new backbone stations from
> our side I would propose to better define the criteria for the
> selection. We are installing about 35 new stations around the Indian
> Ocean (half of them existing, the rest to be installed until 2010)
> and I could surely contribute some of those for the backbone
> network. But how many more stations we need e.g. in Indonesia, Sri
> Lanka, Madagascar and Kenya? We (will) have two stations each in Sri
> Lanka, the Maldives, Yemen (a 3rd one on Socotra), Tanzania, Kenya
> and Madagascar. But how many to select for the backbone? On Rhett's
> list most cases are obvious ones. But e.g. for another station in
> Germany there no justification from poor coverage.
Agreed. On the basis of coverage, it is redundant. Nonetheless, BFO is
an exceptionally quiet site.
As a sidebar, BFO is an Affiliate GSN station. Although data are
distributed by GSN, the station is independent.
> So to me the criteria are not totally clear yet and before
> submitting a proposal I would like to have this clarified. Also if
> we select now only among existing stations or also future ones, and
> if yes, how far in future?
Originally when the "FDSN network" was initiated, most of the planned
stations were relatively far in the future. The criteria seemed to be
when there was actual funding. By this old criteria, potentially all
of the new trans-Indian-Ocean Geofon stations should be considered.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Winfried
On Jul 9, 2008, at 3:02 AM, Lyons, Jim wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I agree with Winfried that the best place to start is to clearly
> enunciate the overall purpose of the FDSN backbone network. Is it
> to be
> a one-stop-shop for global seismology? All of these FDSN stations are
> freebies, in the sense that none are installed or maintained at FDSN
> expense for pure FDSN purposes. They are typically used for
> national/regional earthquake monitoring +/- CTBT verification.
For the GSN, the primary funding purpose was/is science (at least by
US National Science Foundation's measure). Yes, there are now many
other useful purposes for the data. And, our USGS partners are funded
for earthquake hazard response.
It is a great success of FDSN that its members are willing to sharing
their data freely.
>
>
> A similar question arises with the insistence on real-time access.
I do not see an insistence upon real-time. There are still existing
Backbone stations without real-time access. Nonetheless, real-time is
a stated FDSN goal, i.e, "Improving Access to data in real time." If
an FDSN network wishes to make its data available to all in real-time,
why not embrace it?
> In
> the body of Rhett's e-mail of July 7, I believe Paul Wiejacz observed
> that most FDSN stations are already real time within some network.
> Why
> should FDSN get into the business that someone else is already doing?
I agree that the "real-time" component is up to the FDSN member
network. FDSN simply encourages the sharing of data, whether real-time
or not.
>
>
> I am not trying to be unduly negative here. I understand the credo of
> network operators everywhere that more and faster is better. But I
> would like to work towards an explicit understanding of what it is we
> are trying to achieve with the FDSN backbone.
>
> Best regards,
> Jim
>
On Jul 9, 2008, at 11:34 PM, Pawel Wiejacz wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I also agree with Winfried and Jim.
>
> The issue seems to me more conceptual than purely scientific. FDSN
> as it is consists of a growing number of stations and with so
> many stations it is no longer as manageable as it was some time ago.
> E.g. if data stops flowing in from some particular station, it is no
> longer feasible to look after this and inquire why - especially in
> places like Europe where FDSN stations are numerous and one
> can find another station from an alternate location fairly nearby.
In this sense, redundancy is a good thing.
>
>
> So - it appears to me - there is this desire to have some stations
> designated FDSN-backbone, so that these stations make a
> more-or-less uniform global seismic network with some assured
> level of data availibility (open to discussion if this availibility
> level
> is to be 95, 98 or 99%).
There has never been a data-availability standard for FDSN. Perhaps
the best FDSN can do is to have sufficient redundancy to have good
"effective" coverage.
>
>
> This matter is not easy. On one hand I do not see a reason why FDSN
> should not accept another station that is broadband, low
> noise and offering free data.
In principle, many networks offer up all of their stations, and some
share only a few (or perhaps none at the moment). Every network is
encouraged to nominate/offer at least one station to the FDSN backbone.
> On the other hand I can imagine someone putting up a dense broadband
> network on a small area
> and offering all its data (e.g. 100 stations) to the FDSN.
This already occurs. The USArray transportable array of 400+ stations
is entirely open to FDSN in real-time. However, there is no intent to
make this a part of the Backbone.
> It is not the point so that FDSN becomes a free data repository to
> just anyone (who e.g. might wish to save money on disk array - keep
> the data just on his PC and have a backup copy at the FDSN
> for the just-in-case). The line must be drawn somewhere.
Agreed. The FDSN Backbone data are actually archived and open to the
FDSN. Currently the FDSN archive for the Backbone resides at the IRIS
Data Management System. However, there are a number of other FDSN data
centers, which offer additional/parallel/complementary FDSN data.
A number of FDSN members make their own bilateral arrangements to
archive data at various FDSN archives.
Given our current discussion toward increasing the size of the
Backbone (by a some small factor), the impact of additional stations
is still small.
>
>
> It should be the FDSN leaders to decide on this, but to my opinion
> the FDSN-backbone network should be much denser
> than the CTBTOs. Or the interest in the FDSN-gathered data
> will be limited.
Currently, CTBTO is not open, and is available only to States Parties.
The CTBTO IMS is composed of about 170 primary (50) + auxiliary
stations (120) + a few "T-phase" stations on islands. The FDSN
backbone is already more dense at 200+ stations. Since the CTBTO IMS
is fixed by the Treaty, our discussion to increase the size of the
FDSN Backbone will make it relative more dense than CTBTO.
In principle, it would be nice someday to incorporate the CTBTO into
the FDSN.
>
> Of course one must keep in mind that the CTBTO network is
> cunning - it has been constructed with maximum possible station
> density that is still more-or-less uniform throughout the world.
CTBTO uses a lot of arrays for its primary network, and relies heavily
upon FDSN stations for its auxiliary network.
>
> So should FDSN go to a greater station density, then naturally
> there would be regions where getting a greater station density
> than CTBTO shall not be possible. Moreover, FDSN is unlikely
> to surpass CTBTOs resolution in areas like Russia or China where
> much of the data is restricted; according to the CTBTO treaty the
> data is ported to the ISC, but digital data gets then restricted
> there at Vienna.
Although there are some increasing data restrictions, data in Russia
and China are still available through respective joint efforts in
collaboration with GSN.
>
>
> It is a separate question if FDSN should archive all the data or
> perhaps use some distributed-archive scheme. But with distributed
> archive, the number of data contributors, and lack of funding for
> specifically running the distributed-archive at the contributors'
> sites - managing a distributed archive may be a problem.
The FDSN does have utilize distributed data centers with growing
success. However, each of these data centers are funded more-or-less
for their own purposes, for which we are fortunate that these purposes
include international data sharing.
>
>
> Regards,
> Pawel
>