May 17, 2012

                  IPDA Geometry Project Cover Letter

             >>> PLEASE ANSWER NO LATER THAN JUNE 1st <<<


Dear IPDA colleague,

For your information, attached is the first draft of the IPDA Geometry Project "white paper."  This is being sent to the few people who at some time indicated some interest in participation in this project (or who were volunteered by someone else to participate), and also to the IPDA's SC and TEG committees per request of Dan Crichton. If you are both interested and able to participate in this IPDA project, read on.  But take note: this white paper is currently about 25 pages long, so it will take significant time to go through it.

The decision to start out the Geometry Project by having me unilaterally draft a white paper was entirely my own. I realize some of you may not like this approach and might recommend something different be done. Or you might accept the writing of a white paper, but disagree with the approach taken in it. Or you might accept the idea and the approach, but disagree with the next step(s)to be taken.

My sense, right or wrong, was that few people would have time to put in on this project, and so the only way to obtain some results would be for me to prepare a white paper and then invite interested people to help revise it until we can reach a consensus on what it should say. The project might end there, or there might be some recommendations for further work.

I have tried to keep this white paper devoid of existing SPICE details, but of course I can't write about "geometry data" without discussing many of the topics that have come up in my work on SPICE over the years.

The essence of this white paper is to list a smallish number of "requirements" on an IPDA-compliant ancillary data archive, and to also list a larger number of "suggestions" for such an archive. If you decide to participate in the review of this white paper you will perhaps comment especially on what should be the IPDA requirements versus suggestions, including adding missing items and perhaps deleting things that do not belong at all.

I have undoubtedly left out some important topics and I imagine the organization of the paper could be improved. But I did not want to sit on this any longer given that the next IPDA Steering Committee meeting is coming up rather soon. Seems it would be nice to show some real progress on this project before the official end of the project arrives as of the SC meeting in Bangalore. Then the SC can take a decision on any further actions.

How to proceed from here is a bit of a question. I propose the following.

1. Let me know if you plan to participate in this project. (Maybe with any caveats.)

If you will work on the project…

2. Let me know if you think focusing on this white paper is the right approach. And if not, what approach do you recommend?

3. If you do agree the group should focus on this white paper, shall we begin by having everyone send back to me either general comments, or specific changes, or both?  Or do you have a suggestion for a better way to move ahead with revising this document?

                     >>> PLEASE ANSWER NO LATER THAN JUNE 1st <<<

I'll assume no answer by June 8th means you have no interest or no time.  Note that the official end of the project is nominally July 13th at the end of the SC meeting, so any further actions on our part will have to done very quickly.

Regards,
Chuck Acton
charles.acton@jpl.nasa.gov

Distribution:

Randy Kirk        USGS
Mitch Gordon      PDS Rings Node
Jose Luis Vazquez ESA/PSA
Dick Simpson      PDS Radio Science Advisor
Lisa Gaddis       Agent for someone from the PDS Imaging Node?

IPDA TEG
IPDA SC