TCS revision
Goal: to revise the TCS implementation by assessing the maturity of each EPOS WG from a technical, financial and governance point of view. The revision was
performed by a Working Team (WT) who focused on the questions presented in Table 1. In order to answer to questions, the WT have taken into consideration
all the documents the WGs have sent to WP4 and WP6 in the last year: 1) May 2013 Preparatory document for the EPOS Thematic Core Services; 2) October
2013 Document for the EPOS Thematic Core Services; 3) February 2014 Financial Plan; 4) 24-28 February Prague presentations; 5) March 2014 EPOS TCS
Implementation Plan, please note that questions presented in Table 1 mainly result from document #5 and discussions during the WG meeting in Prague. In
the last pages of the present document a summary of these 5 documents is reported. Table 2 summarizes the main findings of the WT, which is a synopsis of
the current state of each WG. This information will be presented to the IAPC during the meeting in Lisbon in late June and is being used to decide which
communities are best positioned to be considered for various funding mechanisms. As the Chair and co-Chair of a EPOS WG you should please review the entire
table, and check the appraisal assigned to your WG situation. The WT welcomes the opportunity to clarify its findings and we are willing to include additional
and/or new information and/or corrections useful to modify/update the table.
The main findings of the WT are:

The general architecture of the WGs is not consistent. ACTION: EPOS PDB have proposed an more clear definition of pillars/nodes that WGs should use
to consider whether they need to re-organise (see page 2 and Fig. 1).

The governance of the WGs is often insufficiently described. ACTION: EPOS needs that TCSs have a governance framework where data management
and services will be implemented.

Financial information is often incomplete or not provided. ACTION: WGs need to urgently provide more detailed financial information in order to be
classified as existing or under implementation.
Working Team: Alice Clemenceau, John Clinton, Lilli Freda, Thomas Hoffmann, Annakaisa Korja
Workflow: 1) collected all documents received by the WGs in the last year (DONE);
2) summarised the information suitable to answer questions on technical, data policy and access rules, finances, and governance aspects from the
various documents received by the WGs (DONE – summary provided here);
3) contact each WG for implementation/correction/finalization of the information (NOW);
3) finalize the document to be presented to the Council (24-25 June 2014, Lisbon) and to the BGR (30 September 2014, Amsterdam).
EPOS TCS Architecture - Definitions for various components as described in the EPOS 3.7 and 7.5 deliverables
TCS – community level integration – it is a Governance tool
A governance framework where the data and services are provided through different pillars and where the community discusses implementation strategies,
sustainability, legal, and ethic issues.
PILLAR: Organizational structure
It represents the environment where different sets of data, products and services, directly related to a specific community, can be coordinated managed and
organized through distributed/single nodes.
NODE - it is a RI element
It represents a distributed network of infrastructures or a single RI delivering data, products and/or services directly related to the data integrated in each
pillar belonging to each TCS for that specific community.
SERVICES – not a topological entity – they are IT tools for data management
IT solutions provided to the scientific community through the multiple or individual nodes belonging to a pillar.
Community/stakeholders
EPOS-ERIC
ECO
Waweforms
PILLAR:
PILLAR:
Node
ORFEUS/EIDA
Node
ESM
Node
SISMOS
Node
EMSC
Node
AHED
Node
EFHER
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
Hazard & Risk
DATA
Earthquake products
DATA & services
DATA & services
PILLAR:
THEMATIC CORE SERVICEs
DATA & services
ICS (central hub and/or distributed)
WG1 Seismology
Na onal Research Infrastructures and/or other data providers
Figure 1. Please note that this figure is used only for providing a visual representation of the above definitions
Table 1. General: Questions the WT focused on for the TCS assessment
Operability:
Are the data declared currently available to users through any form of online access?
Does the TCS retain an e-infrastructure (website)?
Does the e-infrastructure work?
Limitation of the e-infrastructure?
Technical
Interoperability level:
Does the TCS use standard for data and metadata?
Does the TCS have web services?
Does the TCS adopt a data policy and AAAI?
Access to high-level data products:
Does the TCS have a plan to deliver high-level (in the data taxonomy) data products?
Adopted data policy:
Is the TCS adopting a data policy?
Which user’s and data’s category is the TCS adopting?
Data Policy
Existing access rules:
Is the TCS adopting any rule for the access to data and facilities?
IPR awareness:
Is the TCS taking into account IPR?
Summary of the cost assessment: solid, detailed, clear separation between existing / new costs
Funding model:
a) funding sources for existing services solid, clearly explained, detailed
b) long term sustainability for existing services existing costs secured or strong strategy to secure the missing part, clear vision of the future
Financial
c) information on services under implementation possibility of hosting institution/country funding, Eu or national projects in preparation
d) information on envisioned services ideas of the funding possibilities and opportunities
Expectations regarding EPOS Flexible fund: understanding of the kind of activities that EPOS may fund, understanding that EPOS is not a
funding agency, activities identified are in line with EPOS vision
Internal coherence:
Organization
Is the governance (WG structured in TCS, pillars, nodes, services) coherent among all WGs?
&
Shared Governance Model:
Governance
Is the declared governance shared among the community behind the WG?
Table 2. General: Summary of the WT TCS Evaluation
1
Working Group
Seis
2
Volc
3
Geol
4
Geod
5a
OBS
5b
NF
6
Labs
Nothing
yet
existing
EIDA
Nothing
yet
existing
8
Sat
9
Mag
10
IndS
Operability
Nothing
yet
existing
Are the data declared currently
available to users through any form
of online access?
Nothing
yet
existing
Yes (at least a subset) / Available though
other TCS / No
Does the TCS retain an einfrastructure (website)?
Yes (at least for 1 service) / No
Multiple
(will be
part of
EPOS)
OneGeo
(outside
EPOS)
EUref
Limited
coordina
tion
across
services
not fully
tested as
not a
domain
specialist
No
coordinated
access across
datacenters,
limited data
access
Should
WG build
own tools
or instead
use other
WG?s
Should
WG build
own tools
or instead
use other
WG?s
imminent
Will adopt
Will adopt
imminent
existing
infrastruct
ures in
WG1/3
existing
infrastruct
ures in
WG1/3
HelNeb
(outside
EPOS)
Multiple,
(outside
EPOS)
not a
single
infrastru
cture
Requires
update
for EPOS
Does the e-infrastructure work?
(testing only by browsing website)
Yes (at least for 1 service) / No
Limitation of the e-infrastructure?
In all cases, e-infrastructure only partially covers planned
services
No obvious limitations/ minor limitations /
severe limitations / not existing
Technical
Interoperability level
Does the TCS use standard for data
and metadata?
Needs to
create
Will
adopt
No real
plan to
integrate
with
other WG
As above
Yes, good examples exist/ standards exist
and will be adopted / standards need to be
created or no plans to use standards
Does the TCS have web services?
Yes (at least for 1 service) / in development,
or can use services in other WGs/ No
existing
infrastru
ctures in
commun
ity
emerging
Does the TCS adopt a data policy
and AAAI?
v.
restricted
Yes, EPOS policy / Not clear / Not existing or
very restrictive
Access to high-level data
products
Does the TCS have a plan to deliver
high-level (in the data taxonomy)
data products?
Yes, some high level products are planned
0-3
0-3
0-3
1-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
Working Group
1
Seis
2
Volc
3
Geol
4
Geod
5a
OBS
5b
NF
6
Labs
8
Sat
9
Mag
10
IndS
open
access/
restricted/
embargoed
open
access/
restricted/
open access/
embargoed
restricted/
embargoed
open
access/
embargoed
open
access/
restricted/
to be
specified
open
access/
INSPIRE
open
access/
restricted/
data
producer,
academia
data
producer/
academia/
government
Not clear if
OneGeol.
compatible
with EPOS
EDGI
Not clear if
OneGeol.
compatible
with EPOS
data
producer/
academia/
government
data
producer
data
producer/
academia/
data
producer/
academia/
government
data
producer/
academia/
government
data
producer/
academia/
government
/
industry
anonymous
/
registered/
authorized
anonymous
/
registered/
authorized
GEO
Not clear if
OneGeol.
compatible
with EPOS
to be
checked
registered
registered
registered/
authorized
INTREMAG
NET
DOI
planning to
use
EPOS IPR
rules
Adopted data policy
Is the TCS adopting a data
policy?
(Note overlap with question above)
Yes, a policy is discussed / Not
clear if policy is consistent with
EPOS
Which user and data
categories are the TCS
adopting?
Data
Policy
TCS plans variety of services, and
references EPOS data and user
policies / Not clear if policy is
consistent with EPOS
Existing access rules
Does the TCS already
implement open access
rules consistent with EPOS
for existing services
Yes / Not clear / No existing
services
authorized registered/
authorized
Possibly
inconsistent
with EIDA
registered
Possibly
inconsist
ent with
EPOS
IPR awareness
Is the TCS taking into
account IPR?
Yes, IPR is clearly taken into
account / Not clear / No
information
citation
needed
planning to
use
EPOS IPR
rules
Working Group
1
Seis
Summary of the cost assessment
2
Volc
3
Geol
4
Geod
5a
OBS
5b
NF
6
Labs
8
Sat
No financial
info
No
financial
info
Financial
Plan under
revision
No existing
services
Seems to build
services already
existing in other
WGs
No existing
services
No financial
info
High
expenses not
justified
No financial
info
No
financial
info
Financial
Plan under
revision
No existing
services
No existing
services
No existing
services
No financial
info
Not clear how
existing
services
integrate into
EPOS;
No existing
services
Major
shortfall
imminent @
EMSC. Other
services
(AHEAD,
Orfeus, ESM,
EFEHR) rely
on
continuing
support at 1
institution
No financial
info
No
financial
info
Financial
Plan under
revision
No existing
services
No existing
services
No existing
services
No financial
info
Nations keep
support 5but
not clear for
the additional
costs to adapt
to EPOS)
No existing
services
Insufficient
detail on
ESM funding
plan beyond
NERA
No financial
info
No
financial
info
Financial
Plan under
revision
Waveform
Pillar under
development
needs to be
coordinated
with WG1.
Funding at
national level,
needs to be
extended
Plan for
building 2
pillars exists
but funding
speculative – I3
/ ITN? Current
funding from
(uncoordinated
) national
contribs
No services
under
implementation
No financial
info
No services
under
implementatio
n
Costs are
extremely
high, but I3
and national
funding
existing
4th pillar is
not budgeted
No financial
info
No
financial
info
Financial
Plan under
revision
Coordination
with other WG
services
required.
COST, I3
current
funding
options (COST
proposal
submitted)
Possibility of I3
/ ITN projects,
nothing
concrete at the
moment
ELYSE / I3
(problem: relies
at 100% on the
ELYSE proposal,
no plan B; no
plan for long
term
sustainability
after ELYSE)
No financial
info
No envisioned
services
No
envisioned
services
No
financial
info
No financial
info
No request for
flexible funds
Proposal exists,
but no related
cost estimate.
No request for
flexible funds
No financial
info
Request to
integrate
existing
services into
EPOS, but no
further details
or financial
plan
Request for
contribution
notably to
pillar 4.
solid, detailed, clear separation
between existing / new costs
Clear plan / no existing services or new
services proposed / Problems / financial info
not available
9
Mag
10
IndS
Clear plan
but some
services
already exist
in other
WGs
Funding model
a) funding sources for ex. services
solid, clearly explained, detailed
Clear plan / plan exists but issues / Problems
/ info not available or no existing services
b) long term sustainability for
existing services
existing costs secured or strong
strategy to secure the missing part,
clear vision of the future
Clear plan / plan exists but issues /
Problems / info not available or no existing
services
c)
Financial
info on services under
implementation
possibility of hosting
institution/country funding, Eu or
national projects in preparation
Clear plan / plan exists but issues /
Problems / info not available or no services
under implementation
d) info on envisioned services
ideas of the funding possibilities
and opportunities
Clear plan and action / plan exists but not
yet solid / Problems / info not available or
no envisioned services
Expectations regarding EPOS Flexible fund
understanding of the kind of
activities that EPOS may fund,
understanding that EPOS is not a
funding agency, activities identified
are in line with EPOS vision
no request or ‘reasonable’ request / request
made, seems reasonable but no financial
infp / Problems / info not available
No realistic
alternative
to flexible
funding yet
proposed
No financial
info
Working Group
1
Seis
2
Volc
3
Geol
4
Geod
Coherent
yes, but
maybe last
pillar will
not be built
Promising
but not yet
developed
Requires
high level
agreemen
t OneGeo
/ EPOS
Will follow
UNAVCO
No clear
governance
proposed.
Not clear
how existing
governance
of services
wider than
EPOS
(Orfeus,
EMSC) can
move into
EPOS
More detail
required for
how
national /
EPOS level
governance
will operate
No one
proposed,
but
possibly
not
required
To follow
Unavco.
Needs more
detail.
5a
OBS
5b
NF
6
Labs
8
Sat
9
Mag
10
IndS
Want to use
WG1 services
but different
pillars
Detailed, but
very large
TCS structure
must reflect
wider satellite
community
Simply follows
existing
structures. Are
they really the
best
organisation?
Are
document
repository /
outreach
real pillars ?
Single
govenance with
1 member from
each NF.
Reflects very
small size of
this TCS
More detail
provided, seems
sensible. Check if
compatible with
EPOS ICS / ECO
N/A
Complicated as
EPOS -M will
be built as a
number of
subsets of
existing
international
communities
with own
governance
Internal coherence
Is the organisation (WG structured
in TCS, pillars, TCS nodes, services)
consistent with EPOS expectation?
(see table 2 below)
Generally sensible / minor issues or EPOS
Organisation incompatibility / requires review
Governance Model
&
Governance Is there a clear and convincing
Governance model
Generally sensible / minor issues or EPOS
incompatibility / requires review or more
defintion
Loose
governance
proposed, no
details.
Coherent
proposal.
Check if
compatible
with EPOS
ICS / ECO
Specific to WG10: REMARKS AND QUESTION ABOUT FINANCE
Current/existing
costs
Yearly cost on
average (201418)
Total cost over
5 years (201418)
1 781 040
8 905 200
Host
contrib
.
Annual
fees
Additional costs to existing
service
EU
project
National project
New costs (under implementation
service)
Pricing
…
UNDER IMPLEMENTATION Pillar 1: Acquisition of Induced Seismicity Episodes
?
?
?
~27% (2.4M for 2014 -15)
?
?
UNDER IMPLEMENTATION Pillar 2: InSilico experiments including technology-oriented seismic hazards
595 280
2 976 400
?
?
?
~40% (1.2M for 2014 -15)
?
?
UNDER IMPLEMENTATION Pillar 3: Document Repository
225 000
1 125 000
?
?
?
~35% (400 000 for 2014 15)
?
?
UNDER IMPLEMENTATION Pillar 3: Outreach, education, users feedback
318 000
1 590 000
?
?
?
~31% (500 000 for 2014 15)
?
?
Remarks:
- For each pillar, the major part of the costs are concentrated on 2014 and 2015.
- The National projects (2014-2015) are the only funding source mentioned, altogether, it funds 31% of the whole TCS (~56% of the costs in 2014 and 2015).
Questions:
Host premium:
- The plan is to locate WG10 TCS in the Academic Computer Centre CYFRONET AGH in Poland, does it provide some kind of “host premium”?
National funding:
- The Polish National project is granted 3.5M€, but if we sum up the total of the national support mentioned as secured for 2014-2015, it reaches 4.5M: where do the
extra 1M€ come from?
- For Pillar 1, it is mentioned that most of the costs should be funded nationally (actually, 60% is “assumed to be secured”, does it refer to the Polish national project
using structural funds?). How secured is this? Can you provide more details?
- Where do the 10% of national funding mentioned for pillars 2, 3 and 4 come from? Are they secured?
- What will happen after 2015 when the Polish national project will be finished?
EU funding:
- For pillars 2, 3 and 4, it is mentioned that EU funding is required. Do you have dedicated calls for proposals in mind and what are their deadline and funding
opportunities? Which activities in which pillar would it concern? Please provide more information, in particular about "LCE-16 2014: Understanding, preventing and
mitigating the potential environmental impacts and risks of shale gas exploration and exploitation"? What about the I3 project?
EPOS-ERIC flexible funding:
- For the pillars 2, 3 and especially 4 it is mentioned that EPOS flexible funding would be needed. Are the activities, period and amount identified?
In general, please provide further information regarding the funding of each pillar besides the Polish national project (structural funds), discriminating between the funding
that is secured and the funding that is envisioned.
Specific to WG1: Evaluation Summary based on the received documents
WG 10 Infrastructures for georesources
Chair: Beata Orlecka-Sikora [email protected]
Co-chair: Stanislaw Lasocki [email protected]
Simone Cesca
[email protected]
Grzegorz Kwiatek
[email protected]
Jean Robert Grasso [email protected]
Anders Dahle
[email protected]
Technical
There exists one ‘Thematic Core Service’ (TCS) for WG10, Induced Seismicity Node that will integrate IS Research Infrastructures. This TCS is internally organized in four different ‘pillars’. Not
operational yet. The prototype will become operational within 2014. It will have a full functionality of the final WG10 TCS and it will be developed to this final form during the construction
phase of EPOS.
Pillar 1 Acquisition of Induced Seismicity Episodes
Pillar 2 InSilico Experiments Including Technology-oriented Seismic Hazard
Pillar 3 Document Repository
Pillar 4 Outreach, Education, Users’ Feedback
Operability
Interoperability level
WG10 TCS computing resources to manage, store and analyze induced seismicity data will be provided by PL-Grid infrastructure of which Academic Computer Centre CYFRONET is a
coordinator. Data Center will collect the mentioned seven IS episodes and upload them, on user’s request, to WG10 TCS.
Details concerning TCS/ICS compatibility:
 Metadata catalogue, WG10 provides detailed information concerning IS metadata for WG7. To assure EPOS-CERIF compatibility either WG10 CERIF setup will be provided or a 100%
CERIF-compatible system. CERIF applicability for WG10 purposes is currently in test phase.
 WG10 TCS services, TCS architecture is based on InSilicoLab technology. This technology implements open, widely accepted standards, with known API. These key factors make it easy
to integrate with ICS web services.
 Data compatibility, Data are stored in several data formats. WG10 works closely with WG7 on this topic in order to achieve data compatibility. As a result we expect EPOS to provide
common tools allowing users transparent access to the community data.
 WGs Support, work duplication, In order to achieve compatibility layer between various WGs of EPOS WG10 is actively involved in works of the Recommendation Board. We expect that
the Board will provide best practice examples, recommendations concerning standards used in EPOS (above-mentioned metadata structure, protocols for data transfer, data sharing
strategies and many more).
Access to data products
Data Policy & Access Rules
Adopted data policy
We plan to have an open access to all WG10 TCS resources form the level 0-2 for registered users. On request of data provider, a small part of research infrastructure can be temporarily located in a restricted area. Decisions for such
cases will be taken by TCS management. An open access to some TCS resources can be problematic. For instance TCS will have hazard assessment services but hazard estimates can be easily converted into „risk information”. Hazard
estimates should be assessed and conveyed in a competent way. Because of that hazard assessment services cannot be fully public. In this connection RI from levels 3-4 will be basically open but we envision that some information and
services can be located in restricted area. Software openness will be determined by software providers under acceptance of TCS management.
It is foreseen that data providers, who are public and/or private organization, will retain data ownership rights. However, when uploading data to EPOS platform they will transfer copyrights to EPOS. The data will reside in national and
/or local Data Centres and on request will be copied temporarily to EPOS users workspace.
Existing access rules - IPR awareness
DATA
LEVEL
0
DATA TYPE
DATA POLICY
ACCESS RULES
Waveforms
0
Online/Offline
data access
Offline data
0
Station and sensor
information
Production data
0
Geometry data
0
Auxillary parametric
data
1
Basic catalog
1
Extended catalog
2
Extended data on
seismic sources
2
Processed data
3
3
Highly Processed 0D-4D
data
Software
3
Reports
Waveforms. Open data for some comprehensive cases
and data restricted for the others
Information about the sensors (seismic, gravity, strain,
pressure etc.). Open data policy.
Information about exploitation (well head pressures,
injection rates, amount of ore exploited). Both, Open
and Restricted data policy.
Various information about geometry (well traces,
engineering structures, panels exploited, fault traces).
Both, Open and Restricted data policy.
Other 0D-4D information tied to the specific RI (such as
3d velocity models, gravity anomaly maps, profiles,
cross-sections, sample data, fissures, geological data,
samples, repeated measurements of various physical
parameters etc.) Open data policy.
Basic seismic data (time, location, magnitude). Open
data policy.
Extended information (fault plane solutions, moment
tensors, detailed source parameters, PGV etc.). Open
data policy.
Highly processes seismic data (rupture directivity,
source tomography, relocated catalogs, velocity
models). Open data policy.
Processed auxiliary data (e.g. geomechanical
parameters)
Seismic hazard maps (2D), high fidelity velocity models.
Open data policy.
Software designed for mining-induced seismicity. Open
data policy.
Open access reports resulting from analysis of induced
seismicity. Open data policy.
Offline data access
Offline data access
Offline data access
Online/Offline
data access
Offline data access
Offline data access
Offline data access
Offline data access
Offline data access
Offline data access
Financial
Summary of the cost assessment
NAME
2014
2015
2016
PILLARS UNDER IMPLEMENTATION
Acquisition of Induced Seismicity Episodes
3 394 400 1 572 200 1 547 400
InSilico experiments including technologyoriented seismic hazards
1 250 000
510 000
500 400
Document Repository
335 000
245 000
195 000
Outreach, education, users feedback
450 000
295 000
295 000
TOTAL TCS
5 429 400 2 622 200 2 537 800
2017
2018
1 135 900
1 255 300
360 000
175 000
275 000
1 945 900
356 000
175 000
275 000
2 061 300
The cost estimate is very solid and detailed. As new countries will be integrated (UK, Spain) the total cost is expected to rise by an order of 20%.
Funding model
a/ Funding sources for existing services
There are no existing services yet.
b/ Long term sustainability of existing services
There are no existing services yet.
c/ funding information regarding services under implementation
The services under implementation are funded at the moment thanks to national resources. Discussion are on-going with some partner countries to understand which level of national
support they were able to secure for the coming years. It is not clear for all of them at the moment. In particular, Polish structural funds (3.5 million euros) are secured from September 2013
to September 2015. This money is used to develop each of the 4 pillars.
It is foreseen that at least 60% of pillar 1 costs will be supported through national funding (data acquisition). However, for the other pillars the national support is expected to be lower (10
to 20%).
The possibility to get some funding from industry exists but that is not yet completely clear.
They are enquiring possibilities for next I3 calls to get funded. It is not clear yet if such a call will be launched and what would its scope be.
d/ funding information regarding envisioned services
There are no envisioned services.
Expectations regarding EPOS Flexible Funding
The group is interested to receive EPOS funding (through the flexible fund) for Pillar 4 in particular. They are willing to discuss also if Pillar 4 (outreach, communication and training) could be
linked with the activities in the ECO (for ethical issues, public acceptance…) and maybe in the ICS.
Conclusion:
Many interactions and overlaps with almost all the other WGs. They are in the process of checking which expenses (mainly IT expenses) can be shared with others WGs (almost all other WGs
were mentioned). The cost assessment is solid and the funding model being built is realistic. The group is proactive in searching for funding and seems well aware of the opportunities. Are
they involved in the Elyse proposal since the georesources have been added to the topic of the call?
Governance
The governance model foreseen for after reaching the full operational phase is:
a. ISN Council (ISNC) composed of WG10 National Contact Persons;
b. Scientific & Technical Board (S&TB);
c. Quality Control Section (QCS);
d. ICT Section;
e. Promotion & Collaboration Section;
Internal coherence (TCS/Pillar/TCSnodes)
See Table 1
Shared Governance Model