Talk:UC AWOB PM 04 Create Task Usage Scenarios

MPDL,GAVO

Scenario 1

 * Provided by : Angela Bongiorno (MPE)
 * Description : task example for data reduction, eg., spectra.
 * Scenario
 * Have a project meeting to decide who wants to do what tasks: PI asks project members.
 * For Data reduction: Spectra
 * Three project members (A, B, C in different locations) are assigned to reduce the same set of observations.
 * They agree on that
 * A,B get the raw data
 * A, B do the data reduction independently, upload the results or send them directly to C.
 * C reviews the results from A and B, take the final decision and produces and uploads a FITS file containing the final reduced data
 * A message notifying the final reduced data available appears on the web site for project members only.


 * Angela's comments
 * the number of members assigned to a single task should be flexible. Some tasks require one person, some other more. Therefore, the PI should be able to decide the numbers of "persons" to which assignes the task.
 * If more than one people are assigned to a task there is agreement between them who will close the task. Sometimes, there is some one who is responsible ('C' in scenario 1), other times, the assignees agree that the task is completed, and whoever changes its status in the todo list doesn't matter(scenario 3 below).
 * The PI can decide whether there is a temporal sequence in completing a task. For example in scenario 1 when A, and B are done then C can start working. However, not all task has a temporal sequence, it can also be that all the people assigned to the same task can work in parallel and there is not temporal sequence. If there is a need to specify to such sequences for a task PI can describe them in a task note.


 * NBU's comments/questions
 * would it be desirable if tasks are already settled-up on a meeting, to be able to have a quick task creation related to the meeting event
 * above scenario states "A, B do the data reduction independently, upload the results or send them directly to C" - "send them directly to C" - i'd keep it for a moment out of scope of AWOB - as the aim of AWOB is to get the results (or as minimum links to the location of results) uploaded. However, nice functionality in this case would be to "notify a user" explicitely upon upload of a resource to AWOB
 * depending on the task structuring and detailing i.e. if C gets explicit "review please" task, the same data which were output for A and B are input for C (conclusion only, no question).

Scenario 2

 * Provided by : Angela Bongiorno (MPE)
 * Description: task example for the second order product, eg., derive black hole mass from the reduced spectra
 * Scenario
 * Angela volunteers to do it and gives a rough deadline
 * She downloads the final reduced spectra produced in Scenario 1
 * She measure the necessary quantities from the spectra and runs her codes to compute the BH masses.
 * She uploads the final result in the form of ascii file to a website for project members only.
 * This table can be screened via TOPCAP to get a rough and fast idea of the data.)
 * A Notification appears in the web site for project members only.
 * For example: Angela Uploaded the BH mass measurements (can be downloaded here BH_mass_v2.1.dat, see the readme file BH_mass_v1.2.readme)
 * The name Angela could be clickable (mail or instant message) to ask something.


 * NBU Comments
 * in this case indeeed the second order product may also be related to the overall task defined in Scenario 1?
 * Notification mechanism provided here as an example is more like a task completion notification provided as it references several uploaded resources - this is somehow a separate dimension in addition to notification upon uploaded resources (already available as a default).
 * Clickable user name:
 * understand if this could be a default behavior for all users in LR or this is only related upon notification for a task completion?
 * understand if the questions asked shall be treated as comments related directly to the task or uploaded resource (in which case is a bit different workflow and setting)

Scenario 3

 * Provided by : Roderik, Gerard (MPA)
 * Description:
 * Scenario
 * Roderik adds astrometry to output FITS images which results in FITS images with WCS keywords. medium priority
 * Lemson, Roderik, Matthias create web application for running skymaker online. low priority


 * NBU Comments
 * these seem like a projects on its own which describe what needs to be done
 * we need to clarify the tasks in here and the workflow with tasks in here to better understand the scenario


 * JK: indeed, Gerard should update this

Scenario 4

 * Provided by : Andrea Merloni(MPE)
 * Description:
 * Scenario
 * Need to write a white book about scientific goals in eRosita.
 * Ask all the leaders of all the working groups to provide the goals of each working group by certain date.
 * Collect all the inputs and produces the white book.
 * Need a place where he can see who already sends it to him or not.


 * NBU Comments:
 * Could the "translation" to the task scenarios be the following?
 * Potentially, writing a white book is a project on its own - "White book project", with a PI (Andrea Merloni) and with the leaders of the working groups as collaborators (Co-Is) of the "White book project"
 * Each Co-I has one or more tasks assigned by the PI (on particular aspect of the white book)
 * Co-Is do the work, and upload the resources related to the white book
 * PI can at any time check the status of the tasks and resources uploaded for each of these tasks in AWOB
 * PI can at any time check which resources has been uploaded and what are the related tasks (one or more for a resource) and who uploaded the tasks in AWOB
 * (not in the scope of task management and creation, however this is a very nice scenario for "publishing a project")
 * JK: Yes, it could be translated into a project scenario. Not for a 'publishing a project' but for a 'publication project'.

Scenario 5

 * Provided by : Frank Haberl(MPE)
 * Description:
 * Scenario
 * Need an optical followup observation in a certain area of sky.
 * Frank creates a task without assignees.
 * The task appears on the todo list and 'what's new in the project' page as an open task.
 * Some project members are interested in doing it, and contacts Frank about it.
 * Make an agreement b/w them and Frank or whoever is authorized adds the assignees to the task.

Indeed a very interesting "define and precise collaboratively work" scenario.
 * NBU Comments
 * What's new in the project page contains an open task - somehow in a similar manner related to the scenario1 above
 * A task can be explicitly anounced or not. If a task has no assignees, it may mean that PI is not yet certain who is to be assigned to, but would need to keep a track of the "project todos"
 * shall task notification mechanism be immediately triggered upon task creation? Maybe not all people are interested in all tasks as well.
 * different kinds of task announcements are probably interesting to understand (i.e. "seek fo contributors" announcement or "completed task" announcement like in Scenario 1 above
 * maybe in very simple workflow, would be good if task themselves do have a collaborative dynamics as well. If some people contact Frank with questions, it would be good if all these are somehow related to the task i.e. their questions/comments are directly part of the task log in AWOB (as questions, comments) - so that all interested people could see and even sharpen what the task is about. Some people can come back at later stage and see already what others have discussed, so they could bring their own detailed questions for the task and do not have to re-ask again already answered questions.