Set of Foils Summarizing Conclusions of Working Group 2
	Second Pasadena Workshop: Working Group 2 - Characteristics of Scientific and Engineering Applications.
		Chair: Geoffrey Fox
		Co-Chair: Andy White
		Secretary: Ken Hawick
		January 10-12,1995 Pasadena
	Overview of WG2 Deliberations
		We discussed 12 application areas -- "vignettes" -- of which 3 -- all from industry --  are contained in final short report
			Real Time Embedded Systems
			Structural Dynamics
			Manufacturing and Design
		We discussed at length the impact of "non-technical" issues such as setting up:
			End User -- ISV -- MPP Vendor Business Model with
			Appropriate Academia -- Government Synergy
		These non-technical issues lead to technical points which ensure a better more predictable HPCC software development environment
	Charter: Question 2.1: What are the characteristics of scientific and engineering applications and algorithms that require high-performance computer systems?
		Non-technical Characteristics of broad significance such as academia vs industry, and/or
		Technical characteristics of specific applications (regular vs irregular)
	Charter: Question 2.2: What are the highest priority issues for system software and tools implied by these applications and algorithms? 
		Identified several specific technical issues
	Charter: Question 2.3: How will these applications and algorithms contribute to the long term commercial viability of high-performance computing systems? 
		Coupled to "broad non-technical issues" identified in Question 2.1.
	Initial Summary of Technical Points
		1) need for better debuggers, profilers, performance monitoring tools
		2) need for more stable operating systems
		3) need for tools to aid in code migration to parallel systems, whether it be in the form of libraries, or other software engineering tools.
		4) need to reduce the latencies due to system software
		5) need for looking at exciting and innovative applications areas, (to help the HPCC industry by stimulating new demands).  This might involve very data intensive applications (in contradistinction to compute intensive ones) but also harder and more complex problems, irregular data structures and less obviously load balanceable problems.
	Enterprise Models:
	(Forms of Industry, Government and Academic (IGA) collaboration)
		1) Viable base model: Build HPCC software on an internally viable base such as SMP's (shared memory multiprocessors) distributed computing or the WWW.
		2) Internally consistent model: areas where business case for HPCC is internally viable (eg decision support)
		3) Partnership model: Government supported teams collaborating with industry teams (eg oil and gas)
		4) Pulse/Seed support model: IGA teams to develop applications (eg Europort, IBM, TMC,...)
		5) Ongoing support model: of areas of national importance, but without identified commercial markets (NSA, Weapons, QCD)
		6) Dual benefit model: Government market bootstraps viable commercial market or vice versa.
	Comments on Enterprise Models:
		Categories are not rigid but (six) approximately defined regions in complex multidimensional space (they could be merged or overlapped). Different application areas have different investment strategies
		Different applications have a different mix of metrics such as:
			Economic value;
			Contribution to fundamental knowledge;
			National Security;
			Quality of life.
			(as examples)
	Another Non Technical Issue -- What is the Community ?
		Need to involve a larger group of non HPCC communities
		For instance, most of the messages on networks are
			MIME (Email/World Wide Web) or eventually ATM (of one or another adaptation layer AAL)
			Not PVM/MPI
		But MPI standrards set internally to HPCC and did not explicitly involve ATM/Internet community/standard processes
		HPF focusses on regular multidimensional arrays in an excellent standards forum that ignores
			VRML which is a fascinating 3D (irregular) datastructure which surely needs HPCC and will greatly broaden relevance of HPCC as used in interactive simulations of virtual worlds
		Need HPVRML and a broader community
	Initial Vignettes Identified
		NASTRAN
		Real-time embedded systems
		Aerospace manufacturing
		Crisis management
		Nuclear Weapons
		Environmental Modeling
		Mission to Planet Earth
		Data Intensive Applications
		High end CFD
		Centric
		Computational Chemistry
		QCD
	Action Items:
	1) Support viable base enterprise model with platform independent standards scaling from workstations to MPPs with tools using these standards
		Currently the tail is wagging the dog - the BIG dog?
		What is the market area that is big enough upon which to base viable HPCC standards (eg SMP, distributed systems or WWW)?
		What are the top three standards?
	Action Items:
	2) Change Government funding as implied by the viable enterprise models?
		Industry/market application driven
		Tools and tools funding which are implied by viable enterprise models
		Viable base and Pulse/Seed funding enterprise models appear to be high priority
	Action Items: 
	3) Broaden application base outside traditional science and technology applications
		Low latency (eg real-time)
		design and manufacturing
		data intensive (eg crisis management)
		business
		event-driven modeling and simulation