ILC Cavity Data Management

1
ILC Cavity Data Management

• Requirements Review
• March 30, 2007
• Peter Kasper

2
Team Members

• Jamie Blowers
• Denise Finstrom
• Peter Kasper (leader)
• Michele McCusker-Whiting
• Janice Nelson
• Jerzy Nogiec
• Joe Ozelis
• Marc Paterno
• Claude Saunders

3
Charter

• Written by the team
• Not signed-off by management
• Dated 07-Sep-2006

4
Charter The Problem

• The US effort on fabricating and testing SCRF
  cavities and cryo-modules is occurring at
  numerous sites across the country, and each is
  handling the management of cavity-related process
  data in their own way. In addition, some sites
  (e.g. Fermilab) have numerous different
  sub-organizations working on cavity processing,
  and each of these is also handling data
  management in their own way. The result is that
  much data is being generated, but it is spread
  throughout numerous systems. This lack of data
  organization results in the inability to easily
  locate all data related to a specific cavity and
  cryo-module. This can then lead to numerous
  problems, one of which is the inefficiency at
  best, and inability at worst, to be able to
  appropriately use the data for understanding the
  technology and for making improvements.

5
Charter Our Vision

• The US collaboration envisions a one stop
  shopping interface for all cavity-related
  process data. This interface will provide a user
  with the ability to choose a part/assembly, and
  then retrieve all associated data. For example,
  one should be able to select cryo-module 1 and
  then retrieve the data associated with that
  cryo-module, as well as drill down to all the
  sub-assembly and raw material data.

6
Charter Assumptions

• The scope of implementation is the US
  collaboration.
• The primary function of the solution is to
  provide access to data in a very straightforward
  way.
• The system should be developed in such a way to
  allow the graceful integration of process
  control.
• The data analysis interface is to be web-based.
• A demonstration prototype solution is to be in
  place by January 1, 2007. This system is expected
  to be able to store the process data currently
  generated, and also be able to provide
  rudimentary reporting functionality.

7
History

• The major contenders (none eliminated)
• DESY system
• Part oriented
• Pansophy (JLab)
• Process oriented
• Tecnomatix (UGS)
• Commercial product
• Do It Yourself
• Generated requirements document

8
This Review

• Requirements document will be used to evaluate
  options
• Drives cost/effort comparisons between commercial
  and home grown solutions
• We need to know if this document accurately
  describes what is needed before we go any
  further.