On Jun 22, 2010, at 2:07 AM, wrote: > Hi Ag, > >> I would argue that we (i.e. BADC) *do* need to record the proposed >> usage on the following grounds... >> >> We have pulled in funding from multiple projects/sources to support the >> CMIP5 effort and we will need to report usage to all of them. Some of >> the funders are supporting the core climate science but others have a >> greater interest in the climate impacts community. From my perspective >> it would therefore be invaluable to have a "proposed usage" field in >> the user database(s) so that we can categorise the usage in our >> reporting. >> >> Bryan and Phil, please feel free to shout me down as expressing an out- >> of-date viewpoint on this issue. > > I don't think it matters from the point of view of the access control architecture. As it stands, users will register for some cmip5 access attribute(s) at a web interface hosted by PCMDI. PCMDI also hosts an Attribute Service which enables others services in the federation to query that a given user has registered with PCMDI for the given cmip5 access attribute(s). > > Any additional information recorded at PCMDI during registration is out of band. You might want to consider how the information is disseminated from PCMDI's record to the funders you mention. > > Cheers, > Phil > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: go-essp-tech-bounces@ucar.edu [mailto:go-essp-tech- >> bounces@ucar.edu] On Behalf Of ag.stephens@stfc.ac.uk >> Sent: 22 June 2010 08:48 >> To: taylor13@llnl.gov; go-essp-tech@ucar.edu >> Subject: Re: [Go-essp-tech] Current status on CMIP5 security roles >> >> Hi Karl et al, >> >> I just wanted to pick up the issue of whether we ask users to state >> their intended usage of the CMIP5 data. >> >>>>> Karl said: >> """ >> I can't remember whether we will ask those registering to say what they >> plan to do with the data. Although we did this in the early stages (at >> least) of CMIP3, I'm not sure with 1000's of users this serves much of >> a >> purpose. Anyone think otherwise? >> """ >> >> I would argue that we (i.e. BADC) *do* need to record the proposed >> usage on the following grounds... >> >> We have pulled in funding from multiple projects/sources to support the >> CMIP5 effort and we will need to report usage to all of them. Some of >> the funders are supporting the core climate science but others have a >> greater interest in the climate impacts community. From my perspective >> it would therefore be invaluable to have a "proposed usage" field in >> the user database(s) so that we can categorise the usage in our >> reporting. >> >> Bryan and Phil, please feel free to shout me down as expressing an out- >> of-date viewpoint on this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ag >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: go-essp-tech-bounces@ucar.edu on behalf of Karl Taylor >> Sent: Fri 6/18/2010 17:56 >> To: go-essp-tech@ucar.edu >> Subject: Re: [Go-essp-tech] Current status on CMIP5 security roles >> >> Hi all, >> >> Coming in late to this discussion, I wonder what the purpose of the >> discussion is. Is it simply to define the "controlled vocabulary" >> needed to distinguish between data made available under different terms >> of use? If so, then I suggest: >> >> CMIP5_for_unrestricted_use >> CMIP5_for_non-commercial_research_and_educational_use_only >> >> (or some abbreviated form of the above). The acronyms AR5 and IPCC >> should only be used in connection with the assessment activity of IPCC, >> not any research (or infrastructure support of research) carried out >> that might end up being assessed by the IPCC. The IPCC would probably >> not want it to appear that it sponsors or drives the research that it >> will assess, and the WCRP's WGCM "owns" CMIP5 and should get credit for >> this by having it referred to by its "brand" name (i.e., CMIP). >> >> The WGCM insists on a registration procedure so that they will clearly >> know the terms of use, and this has the added benefit that we can track >> usage better and also can contact users if necessary. Those seeking >> data will have to register and sign one of the two options for "terms >> of >> use" described above. >> >> I can't remember whether we will ask those registering to say what they >> plan to do with the data. Although we did this in the early stages (at >> least) of CMIP3, I'm not sure with 1000's of users this serves much of >> a >> purpose. Anyone think otherwise? >> >> Best regards, >> Karl >> >> >> >> On 6/18/10 4:56 AM, philip.kershaw@stfc.ac.uk wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm forwarding this discussion we've been having at the BADC about >> the CMIP5 access roles. We currently have the roles, >>> >>> AR5_Research >>> AR5_Commercial >>> >>> Ag would like to know more explicitly what these roles mean - see his >> e-mail below... >>> >>> On a second point, Martin would like these roles names changed to, >>> >>> cmip5_rearch >>> cmip5_commercial >>> >>> To better reflect their purpose and the distinction from the AR5 >> activity (his e-mail also see below...) >>> >>> Could someone comment - esp. from PCMDI? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Stephens, Ag (STFC,RAL,SSTD) >>>> Sent: 18 June 2010 12:44 >>>> To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,SSTD); Kershaw, Philip (STFC,RAL,SSTD) >>>> Cc: Lawrence, Bryan (STFC,RAL,SSTD); Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,SSTD) >>>> Subject: RE: Current status on CMIP5 security roles >>>> >>>> Hi Phil et al, >>>> >>>> Presumably the "commercial" and "research" roles limit access in >> some >>>> way. >>>> >>>> However, I would expect most common role to be "public" which >> implies: >>>> >>>> * you still login with your OpenId >>>> >>>> * but the data is available to all >>>> >>>> * but because you logged in there is a log of what you have used >>>> >>>> Is that in the plan? >>>> >>>> Also, do you know if registration requires a description of the >>>> proposed usage of the data? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Ag >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,SSTD) >>>> Sent: Fri 6/18/2010 12:17 >>>> To: Kershaw, Philip (STFC,RAL,SSTD); Stephens, Ag (STFC,RAL,SSTD) >>>> Cc: Lawrence, Bryan (STFC,RAL,SSTD); Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,SSTD) >>>> Subject: RE: Current status on CMIP5 security roles >>>> >>>> Hello Phil, >>>> >>>> A pedantic point: access to cmip5 should be controlled by a >>>> "cmip5_xxxx" role, not "AR5_xxx". We are doing our best to keep the >>>> distinction between CMIP5 (an evolving research archive) and AR5 (a >>>> reference archive consisting of a snapshot of CMIP5 archive >> contents) >>>> clear. >>>> >>>> A further question: if data is made available at BADC through our >>>> browser, on /badc/cmip5 or some equivalent, will this be covered by >> the >>>> same access control mechanism? >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Kershaw, Philip (STFC,RAL,SSTD) >>>> Sent: Fri 18/06/2010 11:42 >>>> To: Stephens, Ag (STFC,RAL,SSTD) >>>> Cc: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,SSTD); Lawrence, Bryan (STFC,RAL,SSTD); >>>> Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,SSTD) >>>> Subject: RE: Current status on CMIP5 security roles >>>> >>>> Hi Ag, >>>> >>>> My understanding is that there are two roles under the authority of >>>> PCMDI which have federation wide scope: >>>> >>>> AR5_Research >>>> AR5_Commercial >>>> >>>> When I say, 'under the authority of', I mean users must register at >>>> PCMDI for these access roles. >>>> >>>> In addition, each institution can still secure datasets with their >> own >>>> roles specific to their institution. For example, there may be >> cases >>>> where a policy marks a dataset as accessible via 'AR5_Research' or >>>> . >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> Ref: http://*esg-pcmdi.llnl.gov/esgf/esgf-security-interface- >> control- >>>> documents/ - 2.1.2. VO Attribute Value Agreements >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Stephens, Ag (STFC,RAL,SSTD) >>>>> Sent: 18 June 2010 11:31 >>>>> To: Kershaw, Philip (STFC,RAL,SSTD); Juckes, Martin >> (STFC,RAL,SSTD); >>>>> Lawrence, Bryan (STFC,RAL,SSTD); Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,SSTD) >>>>> Subject: Current status on CMIP5 security roles >>>>> >>>>> Hi Phil, >>>>> >>>>> I just wanted to enquire about the various security roles planned >> for >>>>> the CMIP5 archive. >>>>> >>>>> My simplistic view is that there will be: >>>>> >>>>> * public - available to all >>>>> * research_only >>>>> >>>>> However, I've heard it might be more complex that than. Do you have >>>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>>> latest lowdown? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Ag >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list >> GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu >> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech >> >> >> >> J >> -- >> Scanned by iCritical. >> _______________________________________________ >> GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list >> GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu >> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech > -- > Scanned by iCritical. > _______________________________________________ > GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list > GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu > http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech