head 1.1; branch 1.1.1; access ; symbols Version19991020:1.1.1.1 bernhold:1.1.1; locks ; strict; comment @# @; 1.1 date 99.10.20.18.32.51; author bernhold; state Exp; branches 1.1.1.1; next ; 1.1.1.1 date 99.10.20.18.32.51; author bernhold; state Exp; branches ; next ; desc @@ 1.1 log @Initial revision @ text @

Complete Information on NPAC PET Proposals/Projects

Last updated Wed Oct 8 10:53:57 EDT 1997

Rapid access... Main internal NPAC PET page
Main public NPAC PET page
ARL Yr 1
ASC Yr 1
CEWES Yr 1 Yr 2

ARL

Year 1

These projects were formulated from the start as a Statement of Work, developed very quickly in response to a request from Ginny To. Consequently, there are no real "proposals" to refer to, just the brief descriptions and deliverables in the SOW.

Short Name (link to SOW section) Status Notes
Distrib. Computing & Web Tech. for FMS & IMT active
Parallel Databases for FMS, IMT, & other ARL Activities active
Training: Web-Linked Databases active
Training: Parallel & Web-Linked Databases active
Training materials: Web Tech. for FMS & IMT active
Recruiting of FMS On-Site Lead active
DoD Software Repositories declined 1
  1. The Software Repositories proposal was declined because ARL does not understand what is involved here and does not want to commit themselves (in a contractual document) to work on something they don't understand.

ASC

Year 1

CEWES

Year 1

Due to various factors, no "serious" proposals were solicited or submitted. There was some effort made to respond to the HPCMO's infamous "35 projects" with proposals of our own, but none NPAC was involved with came to anything.

Year 2

A cover letter accompanied submission of these proposals to CEWES

Short Name (link to proposal) Status Notes
Core Support active
Distance Consulting declined
Education active 1
WWW-based Interfaces for Interoperability declined
Video on Demand declined 4
WWW Search Engines active 2, 4
Intelligent Databases withdrawn 5
Collaborative Computer-Aided Design unknown 5
WWW Site Management active 3
  1. Education proposal was funded at $50,000 more than requested, nominally in order to allow us to "buy" course materials from Cornell or other sources. This places decisions about how to work with CTC's training group in our hands instead of the PET management.
  2. WWW Search Engines proposal was funded at roughly double the amount requested. We must increase our work and deliverables accordingly.
  3. WWW Site Management proposal was submitted after (and in response to discussions at) Annual Review meeting.
  4. We submitted certain proposals indicating that we considered them to be partially of interest to PET and partially of interest to the CEWES/ITL. Feedback indicated that for the amounts of money requested, it was not worth their while to do the paperwork to mingle funds.
  5. Certain proposals were submitted intended for CEWES/ITL rather than PET. As of this moment, I believe the ITL management have not seen these proposals. However there is a significant overlap between the Intelligent Databases proposal and the later WWW Site Management proposal, so I consider Intelligent Databases to be withdrawn.
  6. We were told that all of our proposals were of interest, but that some were not of sufficient priority to compete for the limited funding available.
  7. It appears that there may have been political considerations involved in decisions on some projects. In particular, NCSA nominally leads the Communications and Collaboration support area, and submitted projects that overlapped with some of ours. Neither finances nor technical considerations allowed supporting all projects by both groups. Comment from Joe Thompson was that they decided to let NCSA do collaboration stuff (our Distance Consulting proposal declined) and have us focus on education and web (their web-based training proposal declined)

@ 1.1.1.1 log @Starting to use CVS @ text @@