insituterminology | Sc16Nov14 / Nov142016SC16Meeting

Major Issues

Raised by: Scott Klasky, Janine Bennett
Outcome: we decided that we do think this should be called in situ, but that the current text saying that a DOE workshop found the opposite seemed confrontational. It was identified that the DOE workshop was given that definition as a ground rule. Therefore, we will soften the text, but this will still be called in situ.
Tasked to: Hank Childs
Vetted by: Ken Moreland and Janine
Status: Hank has made change, ready for review

Raised by: Matt Wolf, Janine Bennett
Outcome: we decided that this discussion really belong in the division of execution. Janine will add some surface area to the runtime community, which will then cover this concern.
Tasked to: Janine Bennett
Vetted by: Hank and Timo

Raised by: Michel Rasquin
Outcome: the group agreed with this perspective, but did not want to raise it up to a new sub-category. Therefore, this topic will be addressed in discussion in that section.
Tasked to: Hank
Vetted by: John Patchett. (and likely Michel Rasquin)
Status: Hank has made change, ready for review

Raised by: many, and also indirectly by separate comment from Michel Rasquin (slide 9)
Outcome: we decided at VIS16 that we would put the workflows section after our notional examples section. Hank failed to do this. After discussion, we decided that we would indeed make this switch.
Tasked to: Hank
Vetted by: Michel Rasquin
Status: Hank has made change, ready for review

Raised by: Aaron Knoll
Outcome: we do not want to the arrows. However, we do want to give a tip of the hat to those terms earlier in the doc, likely in the intro of section 2.
Tasked to: Hank
Vetted by: John P, Sean Ziegeler
Status: Hank has made change, ready for review

Raised by: Jeremy Meredith
Outcome: we decided it could be a strength that they both use I/O, provided we write a sentence clarifying the two. A key point was that interposition meant using a library interface in ways that were never its original intention
Tasked to: Hank
Vetted by: Jay Lofstead, Timo
Status: Hank has made change, ready for review

Raised by: Janine
Outcome: we may do this, may not. Depends on Janine's free energy and whether the idea can be pushed further
Tasked to: Janine
Vetted by: Hank

Raised by: Michel Rasquin
Outcome: Add sentence between "Access refers to how the simulation makes data available to visualization and analysis routines." and "The main options for..." that clarifies what logical memory space means.
Tasked to: Hank
Vetted by: Jean Favre, Janine

Raised by: Janine
Outcome: we will initiate an email exchange between the author of that text and Janine
Tasked to: Hank (to send email)
Vetted by: Hank (monitoring email)

Raised by: Andy Bauer
Outcome: we will add this to considerations text in integration type
Tasked to: Hank
Vetted by: Andy, I assume (we did not decide at the meeting)
Status: Hank sidestepped the issue. Andy is right, but it was taking the discussion in an unintended way. I changed "The resources required by in situ routines are generally less than those needed by the simulation, often by a significant amount." to "The execution time and memory usage required by..."

Raised by: Ken Moreland, Will Usher
Outcome: remove tables, do bullets. So modify 4.1 & 4.2 to be bulleted. Also put together a LaTeX environment
Tasked to: Hank
Vetted by: Ken
Status: Hank has made change, ready for review (note the examples are now in 3.1 & 3.2)

Raised by: Ken
Outcome: we will re-arrange each subsection of section 2 to follow a consistent layout. At the end of each will be a "considerations" section.
Tasked to: Hank, and will tap on people as needed to beef up considerations
Vetted by: Ken