11 March 2011

Present: Phil Rumford, Chad Broyles, Grant Banta, Brad Julson, Tim Bronk, Katerina Petronotis, Carlos Alvarez-Zarikian, John Miller.

Item 1: Exp 330 Cruise Evaluations

Shin-ichi Sano, Sedimentologist, commented on samples for macrofossil study, His comments were not clear to the group.

Action: Rumford will contact him to get clarification. (Email sent 3/15/11).

Item 2: Partial migration of JANUS data to LIMS

David Houpt requested that the LWG discuss the question of whether or not to migrate certain data from the Janus database into LIMS and provide him with a recommendation. 

The group thought that migrating Legacy (DSDP up to IODP Phase 1) Hole-Core-Section-Section Half-Piece data from Janus to LIMS would be premature, for the following reasons:

1. We currently use SMCS as our IODP-wide Sample Request Database for all IOs for Phase 2 expeditions. This DB has no direct link to LIMS and sample data entered into LIMS for Phase 2 cores. When we begin to use the new Sample/Data Request LIMS will then have personal sample data associated with a new slightly different Request numbering system.  So it is best that we wait for the new Sample/Data Request System to be implemented before considering migrating legacy core data to LIMS.

2. The LIMS sample data entry software, SampleMaster, continues to have serious problems requiring updates and fixes on every new expedition. It has also continued to have problems during shore based USIO sampling parties. So, migrating Janus corelog data to LIMS also needs to wait until the LIMS section level sampling interface meets or exceeds the stability and usability of the Janus sample interface.

3. If we were to begin entering legacy samples into LIMS while still using Janus for Sample Requests, we would then have a disconnect between the Janus Sample Requests and the samples taken for them at the GCR. Given that all USIO sample requests in Janus up to today have associated sample data linked directly to them, it would be unfortunate to begin leaving complete blanks in Janus for sample data, by prematurely migrating corelog data to LIMS for the purpose of sampling.

Firth added that a recent discussion with Peter Blum occurred, about migrating all corelog info from Hole 1256D (Superfast) into LIMS, so that Exp 335 scientists can use the new DeskLogic and barrel sheet/hole summary drawing software to show the entire Hole, not just what is cored on Exp. 335. This kind of migration is fine because it is not for the purpose of sampling the working halves of 1256D from Exps. 206, 309 and 312.

Recommendation: The group agreed that migrating Hole-Core-Section-Section Half-Piece data from Phase 1 cores was not required at this time. That the best plan for the USIO is to continue to use JANUS Request and Sampling together for all legacy cores (DSDP up to IODP Phase 1), until both a new Sample Request DB and a better LIMS sample interface have been completed, tested, and accepted as being superior to the Janus system.

Action: Rumford will report the LWG recommendation back to David Houpt.

Item 3: LWG members were each asked to examine the current test-version of SDRM at http://data.oceandrilling.org/sdrm/

Some initial recommendations were:

1. The Observables Methods and Tests entry should be reduced to Observables only. It was thought that Methods and Tests were of little use as currently such a wide variety are available to the science community, and new techniques are being constantly developed.

2. It was thought that the Staff Scientists should be asked to test and evaluate the software. 

Action: Rumford asked that all comments be sent to him before the end of March so that they can be combined with comments from the repositories and forwarded to Doug Fils. Rumford will also send the URL to the Staff Scientists. (Sent 3/15/11)

Item 4: Changes in the core handling process that may be necessitated by whole core image scanning on Superfast.

The group was concerned that the use of the whole round core imaging system proposed for Superfast may have the potential to introduce errors into the curation process. The sections of core will be scanned before they are labeled (which currently happens after the cores have been split). It is clear that some temporary labeling of the core, after its initial orientation and before scanning will be necessary.

The group was also curious to know who will actually be doing the imaging.

Recommendation: The group recommends that a meeting be held between the LO, ALO’s, Curator, and Staff Scientist to make sure that there is a common understanding of how the core flow will proceed. And that a written document be produced, outlining the core flow process that can be disseminated to interested parties such as the co-chiefs and techs.

Action: Rumford will set up the meeting, 23 March 2pm Room 105.

Item 5: LWG members were each asked to examine the current test-version of the Catwalk Sample Application at http://web.iodp.tamu.edu/tasapps/catwalk/CatwalkSample.html

The overall design of the program was appreciated. Some bugs and minor flaws were identified. LWG members were asked to test the program further and forward comments, bugs etc. to Rumford for compilation. Banta was to look for alternative platforms that might be more durable than the iPad, but of a similar cost, to run the application. It is understood that Houpt already has tablets pc’s available on which the application can be run for testing.

Recommendation: The LWG recommends that the Catwalk Sampling application be deployed for field trials on Exp 335.

Action: LWG will forward any bugs/errors in the program to Rumford by the week of 21-25th March. Rumford will forward the recommendation to the Issues Management Group.

Item 6: The Geophysics LWG forwarded a request for the Curation LWG to look at the possibility of allowing the decrease in length and corresponding increase in the number of sections logged on high whole round (IW and MBIO) Expeditions. This would allow a section length to be defined by the whole round which would be taken at the bottom of the section. In this way taking whole rounds from the middle of a full section (150cm) could be avoided which would be of benefit to the track systems.

Action: Broyles and Miles will address the issue and make a recommendation to the group which can then be forwarded to the Geophysics LWG.

Item 7: Julson asked if a source for hard rock shrink wrap could be found. Apparently the previous supplier does not carry the film anymore, and a new source is required. There has been some difficulty in locating film which does not emit a strong smell during the shrink process.

Action: Rumford will research possible film sources and report back to Julson.