# Presentation: 169145

## Dataset management and model standardization

- Results of the Splinter Discussion
- Roadmap Proposed

## Dataset management issues:

- Acceptance process (who, how)
- Ancillary (meta) data (calibration, simulation, performance,...)
- Raw+software  vs.  processed
- Distributed vs. data centre
- Access and restrictions
- Data access tools for users/modellers/validators/reviewers
- Design
- Use of existing ventures (CSDS, CAA, CCMC, SEDAT,...)
- Process of Model generation from data
- Model unification; availability; standardization; validation

## COSPAR Panel on Standard Radiation Belts

- Chair: 	Bourdarie, S. (France), 2004 - 2008vice-Chairs:		Daly, E.J. (ESA/ESTEC), 2002 - 2006		Fung, S.F. (USA), 2002 - 2006		Panasyuk, M.I. (Russia), 2002 - 2006
**Terms of Reference**
- The Panel was established **to develop a standard model** of the Earth's trapped radiation belts. The model should be based on experimental data **using all available space data** sources, while **theoretical considerations** will serve to guarantee optimal model construction and use, and internal consistency. The functionality of the model should be defined in terms of the **needs of the user community**. Guidelines should be defined for developing standardised radiation monitors. **Where discrepancies exist between different data sources, the PSRB should promote critical discussion to establish the quality of the data sets**. The model should be updated as new data become available and as old data bases are fully evaluated and exploited. **A liaison should be established and maintained with the international scientific and space engineering communities, such as the IACG and ISO** TC20/SC14/WG14, in order to ensure the availability and usability of data and models for radiation belt modelling and to encourage the sharing of modelling expertise. For further details please visit the _[PSRB homepage](http://www.magnet.oma.be/~dh/psrb/home.html)_.

## Slide 4

## Slide 5

## Intense Discussions in ISO/WG4 (2001)on Quality of some Proposed Models 1/3

## Intense Discussions in ISO/WG4 (2001)on Quality of some Proposed Models 2/3

## Intense Discussions in ISO/WG4 (2001)on Quality of some Proposed Models 3/3

## Kent Tobiska’s ISO UV Standard

- Another approach: Not a model;
- A process by which data, models, tools are accepted

## Inputs to come from splinter groups on plasma, electrons and protons

## Datasets and Modelling Standardization Roadmap (1/2)

- PSRB owns the process of dataset acceptance and modeling acceptance; supports ISO standardization;
- Update panel membership (decide today);
- Define acceptance criteria for datasets:
- It is a PSRB task, but shall include (type, error bars, pre-flight calibration history, simulation, documentation, in-flight calibr. (e.g. conjunctions), coordinate system)
- Datasets shall be made available to a sub-panel (peer review); report back to PSRB;
- PI should be involved in the process and compare data;
- Issue calls for modeling datasets to feed the above
- Initiate in PSRB modeling “tasks” (decide today) and issue modeling calls (parallel);
- Define modeling acceptance criteria (handling propagation of errors, responding to user requirements, validation process, development timescale,...)

## Datasets and Modelling Standardization Roadmap (2/2)

- Resulting draft model shall be put in public domain for evaluation (peers, industry)
*Oracle* group shall be part of the process (i.e. interested industry);
- Test the ISO process: prepare a low-altitude proton model along these lines now, and generate an ISO *New Work Item *simultaneously;
- POLE electron model can also be done now in this process;other electron models later;
- Prepare a “process standard” via PSRB as an ISO activity – datasets and model characteristics;
- PRSB meet (several) before next COSPAR (China, 2006);ISO WG4 mtg. TBD + Toulouse 2005
- Access methods, formats and support ! PSRB discussion but not seen as a problem
- The resources required are large, est. POLE ~1my; LAPM ~2my; others...
- The calls: Joint NASA+ESA+XYZ

## Slide 13

## Other Notes from Discussion

- ISO WG4 are meeting next week (Tues-Thurs) White Sands NM.
- Good tools and processes for comparing other models/implementations (i.e. benchmarking) needed;
- Modular “bite-sized” approach encouraged
- Strong version control on datasets, metadata and models;
- Manpower! Many resources have been allocated for science and we are asking for re-deployment (?)
- Products should be defined pre-flight
- Meetings via teleconf/video/webmeetings