Notes on Software Tools:

The Center for Research on Parallel Computation (CRPC) is uniquely
qualified to lead the ``Software Tools'' activity.  CRPC has been
responsible for the development of many tools for exploiting HPCC,
ranging from the High Perforance Fortran (HPF) and CC++ compiler
initiatives, through software libraries like LAPACK and its
message-passing equivalent ScaLAPACK, and prototype Web navigation
tools like Hyperworld.

Of necessity, CRPC tracks developments in software tools and systems
nationally and world wide, and is able to draw on world wide expertise
on what is available and most suited for HPCC development purposes. 

Not only are CRPC researchers involved in tool development but CRPC is
also heavily involved in application level use of these tools through
its technology transfer and outreach activities.  Through the InfoMall
program, CRPC works with industrial, military and academic partners to
use HPCC software tools to make HPCC systems truly useful.  CRPC
constantly seeks feedback on development directions for software tools
and how existing tools can be customised for specific purposes.  It is
envisaged that eth CTA teams would provide substantial feedback to the
software tools development process and the Software Tools team would be
able to direct MSRC users to the most appropriate tools for specific
programming paradigms, or for specific parallel platforms.


---------------

How would this particular mechanism work?  See the `Team Vision' section
for comparison.

Software Tools is a broader activity than the CTA activities.  This
activity is probably best carried out based at the University sites,
with feedback coming in from the CTA teams, and also directly from the
MSRC users as required.  Information would be disseminated from teh
Software Tools cooredination team, either electronically or by
relatively short term visits by Software Tools team staff to the MSRC
sites. 

The staffing requirements are probably different from the CTA teams.

One senior staff member at the lead site and half a full time staff at
the ``backup'' and ``other'' sites is perhaps sufficient.

This would cost approximately: ( 1 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 2 ) x $100k = $200k
per annum, with an additional travel budget of $50k per annum perhaps,
giving a total of $250k per annum.