Curation and Core Handling Lab Working Group Minutes

01/27/17

Present: Phil Rumford, Chad Broyles, Jason Sylvan, Kara Bogus, Brad Julson, Amy McWilliams, Leah LeVay, Carlos Zarikian, Peter Blum, Denise Kulhanek, Paul Foster, David Houpt, Margaret Hastedt, Ben Daniel

 Item 1: Sample Party Timing

Phil presented a diagram showing the “suggested” timing of the 363; 367/8; 371; and 369 sample parties (attached). The preparation time required for each stage of a sample party was also included in the diagram. A discussion followed, which concluded with:

363 sample party Scheduled for June 19-30 2017.

367/8 Sept 11 was the earliest date to hold the sample party but it may be delayed until October/Nov. Carlos mentioned that 367/8 will require XRF scanning time. That needs to be communicated to David Houpt.

369 and 371 have potentially overlapping schedules. Peter stated that XRF scanning was not required for the splice at all Sites. This being the case, preparations for the sample party may begin much earlier, essentially as soon as the expedition is over. This would make the desired date of early February 2018 for the sample party attainable. Kara was also wanting XRF time although not necessarily for sample location purposes (in most cases). XRF time was slated for Feb/April 2018 for this Exp, aiming for an End March/Early April sample party.

It was noted that the EPM’s should plan for, and request XRF time well in advance to be sure of securing their desired window.

Additional: Peter asked about the sample template, and when it was given to the scientists (during the Exp.). Chad briefly explained the sample list process, and what is required of the scientists.

 Action: Chad will forward the template and list instructions to Peter.

 Item 2: CSF-B. The group was tasked to:

 Decide if we should keep the CSF-B scale – do scientists have a use for it?

Consensus: The group agreed that CSF-B was useful, and should be kept, even though it was used infrequently. Peter added that as graphical capabilities improve the scale would increase in popularity.

 Should CSF-B be applied to science data post Exp. 363?

 Consensus: Yes.  Currently the CSF-B compression is applied to all samples.   The group agreed that sample locations and data locations should be compressed the same way.   It was noted that other variables in the compression factor calculation could affect computing speed and accuracy.

 Recommendation: The group recommended that CSF-B is retained and that it should be applied to data. However, a group should be set up to define how CSF-B is calculated.

Action: Phil will present to the IMT.

 Item 3: Pallets at the KCC

 The “return of the pallets” project languished when Sandy left.

 Action: John Van Hyfte is aware of the need to return pallets to IODP from the KCC, and will be working with Lallan to make it happen

 Item 4: JCORE Data

Scientists are having issues accessing data in JCORES.

Currently the GCR takes sample data from Exp. 346 on, from the KCC and uploads it into LIMS.

It seems that the KCC is requesting we take all the pre Exp. 346 data and upload it into JANUS, and 323 data into LIMS.

Action: As this will no doubt require time a significant commitment I terms of time and effort, Phil will present the issue to the IMT for comments.

Item 5: Ghost Cores

On Expedition 364 a core liner was run down a cased Hole. The resulting core was correctly designated a Ghost core. However, instead of appending the core to the top of the interval as is our practice, the scientists on board decided to append the core to the bottom of the cased interval as they surmised the material came from below the cased Hole. As this placement was based on an interpretation, and the desire to be able to display the core in LIVE, the group thought that this was not appropriate.

Action: Ghost cores and Wash cores will keep their historic definitions in the future. The placement of the Ghost cores needs to be decided by the sailing curator, ops superintendent, and EPM together.