DarGraser -DRAFTTWG Presentation Materials for Feb 23 ARP ... · X Audit system for LSNA X Use NRC...

-| DarGraser -DRAFTTWG Presentation Materials for Feb 23 ARP meeting ;Pae

Enclosure 9From: Dan GraserTo: Chris Berlien, David Hunt, Dennis Bechtel, Elaine Ezra, EnglebrechtvonTiesenhausen, Harry Leake, Harvey Spiro, John Gandi(...)Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 3:11 PMSubject: DRAFT TWG Presentation Materials for Feb 23 ARP meeting

Item #1. Attached is a powerpoint (4.0) presentation prepared by Labat-Anderson comprising a report onTWG activities and report to the ARP. A report by the TWG is going to be the core of the February 23ARP meeting at the Alexis Park.

We hope that this presentation is close to final. However, I ask that the members of the TWG review thisdraft and provide me with comments, requests for corrections, and proposed changes in order that wemay say that the report presents all the salient findings. I ask also that - - in your responses back to me - -if you want to express that some part of the discussion has not been properly characterized, that you alsopropose replacement language, chart or graphic. This will speed up the process of incorporating anychanges. Also, if you want to propose any changes, please "reply to all" on your e-mail so that the othermembers of the TWG can benefit from the exchange.

I have had discussions with Labat on the issue of how to characterize the report. During the introductoryremarks we will note that the TWG:a) is reporting back",b) reached consensus that the first two scenarios were non-starters viz. the mission of the system,c) is not recommending any of the three remaining viable alternatives to the ARP, merely stating that allthree are technically viable, andd) we recognize that there may be other issues that the participants have with one or more of the technicalsolutions but we intend to allow the ARP members to surface those non-technical issues during Q&A.

It will be the responsibility of the full ARP to perform the evaluation on which, if any, should be identified asthe ARP's consensus" choice.

If any of you have a problem with characterizing the report this way, please let me know.

Item #2: Do any members of the TWG want to (or specifically NOT want to) be part of the team thatresponds to questions that may be raised? For example, we finish talking about alternatives 2, 3, and 4and open things up to questions. Labat takes a crack at answering it, but there may have been a goodinsight made during the TWG meetings that you would like to bring back up. So, we could offer the TWGmembers the microphone and let you be part of "the answer team" if you would like. I would be glad tohear from you re: your willingness in that regard.

I'd like to get this presentation to the printers COB Tuesday February 15. I realize that is a shortturnaround but it took us a few rounds of review to get this crafted to its current state.

Also, please let me know if you cannot open import this file with your existing tools.Thanksl

CC: Chris Hoxie, Glen Foster, Jack Whetstine, Joseph Speicher, Paul Bollwerk, TonyNeville

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . .R=

r. '! ** *.! -- ' I'%.v.WVVVVUuuLc. I IIFr..--- .

-

Mail Envelope Properties (38A46CE5.4A1: 1: 18974)

Subject:Creation Date:From:

Created By:

DRAFT TWG Presentation Materials for Feb 23 ARP meetingFri, Feb 11,2000 3:11 PMDan Graser

DJG2.TWF2_PO.TWFNDO

Recipientsinternet

"[email protected]" BC (Bob Wells)

ActionTransferred

Date & Time02/11 3:11 PM

co.clark.nv.usdax (Dennis Bechtel)evt (Englebrecht vonTiesenhausen)

cs.unlv.edutaghva (Kazem Taghva)

gfoster.comgfoster CC (Glen Foster)

isri.unlv.edutom (Tom Nartker)

Transferred

Transferred

Transferred

Transferred

02/11 3:11 PM

02/11 3:11 PM

02/11 3:11 PM

02/11 3:11 PM

labat.comjoseph-speicher CC (Joseph Speicher)tony-neville CC (Tony Neville)

chrisberlien (Chris Berlien)

Transferred

Transferred

02/11 3:11 PM

02/11 3:11 PM

elaineezra (Elaine Ezra)

Transferred 02/11 3:11 PM

yMp.govdavidhunt (David Hunt)harry leake (Harry Leake)john-gandi (John Gandi)lew_robertson (Lew Robertson)samhobbs (Sam Hobbs)

Transferred 02/11 3:11 PM

twflpo.TWFNDOgpb CC (Paul Bollwerk)jgw CC (Jack Whetstine)

DeliveredOpenedOpened

02/11 3:11 PM02/11 3:16 PM02/14 7:38 AM

C:_\WINDO6WS\EMP\GW}00002Q?.TMP .. .d

twf2_po.TWFNDOCLHI CC (Chris Hoxie)hjs (Harvey Spiro)

DeliveredOpenedOpened

02/11 3:11 PM02/11 3:16 PM02/11 5:04 PM

RoutePost Officeinternetco.clark.nv.uscs.unlv.edugfoster.comisri.unlv.edulabat.comchris

Delivered

internetinternetinternetinternetinternet

internet:terraspectra.comelaine

ymp.govtwfl_po.TWFN_DOtwf2_po.TWFNDO

internet:terraspectra.cominternet

02/11 3:11 PM02/11 3:11 PM

FilesArp22300.pptMESSAGE

Size11125763748

Date & TimeFriday, February 11, 2000 12:42 PMFriday,Februaryll,2000 3:11 PM

OptionsAuto Delete:Expiration Date:Notify Recipients:Priority:Reply Requested:Return Notification:

Concealed Subject:Security:

NoNoneNoStandardNoNone

NoStandard

To Be Delivered:Status Tracking:

ImmediateDelivered & Opened

V7,W 1,1'-Zj,�,

MMMMMWM =

Licensing Support NetworkTechnical Working Group Report

Analysis of LSN Design Alternatives

February 23, 2000

Technical Working-AI Group Objectives

.. -,

* Performs any investigation, research, oranalysis as is directed by the ARP

* Provides various products, analyses,,presentations, etc., for the ARP for their

A ~consideration and possible action

February 23. 2000

Page 2

L:s''s

, ... ._ .. ' ,,,, ,; .. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......

oUTLN'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .' ..... ..

* Summary of October and DecemberTechnical Work Group Meetings

* Overview of Alternatives

M Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 - Description,implications, and decision factors

U General Expenditures Assessment

s .:~,, U Summary and Next StepsFebruary 23. 2000Kb ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Page 3

October Meeting Accomplishments

Reviewed three alternative LSN technical solutions

Walked through technical description of each of thealternative solutions

* Proposed a fourth technical solution (variant on technicalsolution 3)

t -Considered & Compared:

- Integration and Interaction

- Server performance

- Text accuracy standards

- Documentation

- Performance statistics anddocumentation

- Acceptable formats

- Document management and control

- Software licensing

- Search engine performance standards

- Security

- Data maintenance

- Training

February 23, 2000Page 4

October Meeting Action Items

-SN Functional Requirements - Items and assigned responsibilities:

* Revised version of Functional * Portal software vendors.Requirements (NRC) Identify if any of them operate

on non-NT systems (e.g,* Recommendations for UNIX?) (NRC)

bibliographic headers (NRC)* Applicability of data mining

Detailed descriptions for the tools (NRC)two (now three) viablealternatives (NRC-LABAT) * Experience of DOE/ES&H

performance statistics from* Ballpark pricing estimates for their portal site. (NRC)

the two (now three) viablealternatives (NRC- LABAT) * Records packages and issues

to be addressedFebruary 23, 2000

Page S

December Meeting Accomplishments

N

* k 54-.I-aam

U

U

U

In. a; _ z _ }. V i..;~~11- I I Ij ._ o ; . .. ' ..... . ...... ..................... ; -' '- % .d -". - i ............................. iw.;" OP.':_.. e

Defined Mission of System:- Web-based system-providing all documents uniformly

- Independent compliance auditing

- Ensure system performance

Defined Key Attributes of System:- LSNA control of system

- Timely availability of the system

- Highest performance at reasonable cost.

A fifth solution proposed (portal with enhanced central storage)

Focus on bandwidth as an important and difficult issueFebruary 23, 2000

Page 6

Additional Activities

. Nevada Public Libraries -

'All public libraty systems in Nevada provide Internet access to thepublic, including library branches in outlying suburban areas as well asrural and remote libraries. So if your documents are available on theInternet, Nevadans will have access to them. Libraries in all of theareas you mentioned provideaccessto Internet. Youl find adirectorylistin of all Nevada libraries and the hours during which they are openon our Departmental website at dmIa.clan.lib.nv.us (click on Nevada

_--*!\< State Library and Archives, then on Nevada Library Directory andStatistics)."

Bonnie Buckley,Library Planning and DevelopmentNevada State Library &Archives

,

ii February 23. 2000Page 7

Additional Activities.... ,; .. .. ... ....

* . ..... ... ..

.. . ....

..... .. ; .......... ........ ;

* - z v

.;

.. ;. . ,i, . ^ ....* r ,, ,,;A :! ,t >, ,,, _ t ,- , . .,A +. }

.., g;. >.-. ,, "; s

: ̂ ; < i .. ;- > --. f .i, -l - i z:_. t .1Xi.".%.? >5 '..t'.SR.." 1<:.ot.g,;<3

., Z o , .

' ' , . . ' i ':. ,.:.. .:'.'';'' '

, ,,,, 1., '. '

.S ' '1.': " .'. ;';.'

r d I f } A i ]

i ' ,,' -., ,, -._ -';

, ,,* _ ( > ,, w J

, ; ...<1 A ...

.,, x, ..,. ,,, r

; .' . *.. r, ;.

'>.N. ' I .'i,).._.15 --1

� - ' '' 'V--f's';

. .1 < | S 1*tF

.':- i ' ..:, , .5a ' - i 0,. '..:.s

hMitwtsi-Pj; X^..,.,,1,.,,, ;. §e

t.- 'i' '' S '' '' i'''S,: '.:'_i;

r - .' ' ' A

<' ii' ' -

',' /,''' *';;; ..,.' E

{s C

.

5..: :. .., .9 _. j

,'".^.>Sq .: ."; . j!$, >' -lI

} !, bS , 4,1

5; ::, ;a"-.{0_. .,

,.';;.,"i a': li

,r.:l;sZ 1 .; _

:;;'.,;':1. '

4: i S .s

t � > fp^*

:.

zX a.

. - -, 4 - , ... -- .... I".--- .... . -.- - , - - -.- .. . ... - ..... .. - - , - I 1.1- -

* LSN Functional Requirements

48 Core Requirements Identified

Attributes of Central Mainframe Scrubbed Out

Reviewed by TWG


~~, t . C ~~4 - - -1~~~~.M~~~~~~~~~~~~~¶EO.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fJ j.,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

:-1 Summary of Oct(Technical Work (

* Overview of Al'

U Alternatives 3, 4,

implications, and

U General Expendi

U Summary and Nr:

I . £

_ . ., ... .. -_. ., :. ', _ , . ' .. ; . _

ober and DecemberGroup Meetings

ternatives

and 5- Description,decision factors

ures Assessment

kxt StepsFebruary 23, 2000

Page 9

Overview ofAlternatives

t7

O Simplif ied - Just Link Everyone's URL

0 Moderate - Central Search Interface

§ Portal fed by distributed participant websites (remote storage)

0 Portal fed by distributed participant websites on campus (proximate storage)

e Portal with enhanced central storage fedby distributed participant web sites


Options forImplementing Alternatives

. _: .,. . ..... .. ........ ... m ....

..- !': .. :.......... . .

: - ; - . }. :. * /*;,: ... :."f'_

: .., 1 ..-. ,'.s.^-''.t.po;

: ti ' U :.;':_ -,'! ', '-!

; w > -rXL . - ,,,,, N ,::' 1;;;i

[.,, o-' &. ':; j' ::: j_

,.',,'' .. i.'!

* t: ^:. >, .....

:: ,,: ., .. '::: .'= s;

.. .., , .r.;

t - ; - <

* , , ..' Z ;

8 8 F ,, g _,. .. s .i; is

:. i';.. . i v i

> r �; -;;w tS t i

..$;.. ,. 1. 1i4 N* 1 -r j3. X tv t .10 .n

t.gI;P. . ,. Zj

* i t .t s r i w j sX ._ s.-,Bqla

i . .5. . .

;

it;;

r. ;. f'.;';'

.9wr .f* . s.,,b i, :,,:.

C,:..: :.6,...e; .: . ::;Ls {, X,

*. r, I r'

i..4 -::1,-' !,;:_ _j,-

i.r,. !;.A

: ,,.....

i: � r '. ' w

§' :" -

.., .. I..;

C.' :.'- .f.{1.>. .x t+. a, .:S

Ss

.; ." __ ... a-,. -- -,7� ..... .... .. � : :1 ., I � .� , . -,.�,- � �: " . '. �, '.. ., , : -, : -" . .1 . .. . ., I I - . . ... ..- - .1 - . . - , ., - . . - , - .: �.'. " , ? � "': -.'!, , " , .. I..... I .. I I . I . . .-.. I .__ - - . . . 1.-~ ~~ ~ ~ V; . ..L} e- ;1. ,.___- _1 _ ._ -;.. _w. . -; - I -- .2 .. . . . . - . _ . _ . .. .:. ... ; - .-

Operate ourselves vs. outsourcing

Campus - a location where each participant'sserver is housed in close proximity. Participantscooperate on shared resources; servers/storageare connected via a LAN.

Co-location Facility - buy standard equipmentand install at a commercial, full service computerinstallation. They provide connectivity, security,backup, etc., for standard fee.


Options forImplementing Alternatives

'' .% '. ' , _ 11 .i .i '.; -, 5 . - .-' .:.

LAr'. *f(�

fr-.01 _

49l9%te aive

.:;-Alternative, 5,., (DiDtrbuted^

;,..Ar'P ortal, wi;>.-CentraIStore)

kDgn Buillct&.Operate.Portald

'.&Central',': .Storaeat -L,'

",Paticipans. Operate.Their

"<t= :"..Sites'n''' .~

'Design-&,,Build.:Portal and <.

Central'cache.pK Operate at,,-. ,C o-location .^. Fa..cility;....,,Partiipants,,:-

'Operate ,Their..-~ Sites'>--

Design.-&lBuiid.:Portal; Operate:

.- Co,-ocation.

! iP.articipants.oEstablish Their5

;k;,Server,a~t '. .,F cility r.-.;


Common AspectsAlternatives 3, 4,

forind 5

n.e .'*±n�fl�

fr

i-.., .4

,,.. I I . ..:. .. , -- '� �. 1: I � ; -,,. --. : 1. .:, � :: I � . �� -, " , � , , -, - , , � , " "'. "', , : '. � .� : 4' � _ . -.. -- -- , �: � ". . ....:.1, II -, - 4 � , � . . .: .-I- ,. " " , :1, , � " ., , : �� .- -, , 1. I . . .. -1 -. - , 1. ..2. -. I . ..- .11-1 1-1 � I , - - - - I .., --- I . .1 � 11 I ... T � I I -. --- .I -_ " -.- I , ..- -- - - - ___ I- -. .- - ---_. _. _- -- - - _. . . I -, -, , - . ... -- - I _.

X Portal-based user interface

X Audit system for LSNA

X Use NRC EIE for motions practice andADAMS for docket

X Web-based system

a Participant to establish web site presence

n Standard formats for documentsFebruary 23, 2000

Page 13

I...-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I.OUA.: ...................... )5: - A.< " S ; ........................ T 0 .$::3 - W 0 ...

4 w Hi G_; 8; **^ _ *6 MU As ^S; i = 9 ' ~v i Iraqi' -4 4;2 w; z S ............ ..

A-I..

., ,4 . 4.. . . .. I- I. .,. '~ Sumar ofh Ocoe and DeemeEDSummary of October and December

Technical Work Group Meetings

I Overview of Alternatives

* Alternatives 3, 4, and 5-Description, implications, anddecision factors

* General Expenditures Assessment

* Summary and Next Steps February 23, 2000Page 14

Alternative 3 Schematic

71

WEB3ERVERS

DOE

IParticipant

INye Nevada

INRC

I

IBM

....... 0.......

LSN Index &Centralized Portal


Alternative 4 Schenatic

. /;^. ;DOE; .- : .o iect' Collection

L2~N

Se

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .........

':~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .....:'.ir'

iNeada.1,:lcollection.

. . .. I . - .- ... I-! v-L ike'6i

...............'I-,


Alternative 5 Schematic- = i=__i= ==.. . .... .. ........... . ..

*' ': '. '' ' ! ';

. '.'.''. g .:

'. _ j .* . .r.::.:._. .j: :_: .............. z _ _-:'':''':'0'i';^' VVL n, . . . .S ; * I; :Es,^.i. ;----ial SERVERS.-.!.' ,f: -s *:;; -v t;t .

*. . t . i .- o'.' x -:. ! w

. ' .. \ WA . A.. .. X

. , _, _ .... @ # .:DX t tX;; } .' ' -.' .'s 4

:] ., DOE Participant Nye Nevad.e,, l l l l

s. ;s. \, ,- o.

..:'5':i..i.¢.i* -{ r...., ., .S.,,RE..o .i .... ' 2

e r .: i F.;' 'L '* ia:ic 7 .:S ;i

r.. !.'-.....

t'Ci:5..*N' '' '' '

S,'>,^,< . .:fs .. .i:

Rt. .,. .. ..

$.. . !,. _ . .

.1-:.': :!> r --t., ;:1:4:: v

; r

t: r t X

7, # v

a, .....i .:': :,

, ,- ..; s

, J

t ! _ i

t:.,'.,'',' 7;-1

$'':'"' i

'. L., ..-; - , � '. : '. , 'r . � -Ij�� ;�, ' .7 -.'� :� -'- � :, ; , I , , , � -I . ..: .. .. I . . .

7a

r

I

NRC

Febrary 23, 2000Page 17

h^ g>J Alternative 3: Distributed Portal!________ Remote Storage

:DESCRIPTION: Remote portal software indexes files that aremaintained by participants at their sites

IMPLICATIONS:

Participant roles- Critical role for ensuring availability and performance

Portal provides some availability aspects

/ Participant ensures file delivery and bandwidth

Ease of use- Very flexible: users may customize desktop/interface

- Consistent query screen/results- Highest level of availability: portal & participant sites independently available

-Response time performance can be variable- Image & text delivery depends on participant resources

1...


Alternative 3: Distributed Portal!Remote Storage (continued)

:.~~~- "-- ' ' :-: . . .'''

DECISION FACTORS:

> .LSNA administrative control- LSNA controls search, interface, security, and access- Monitoring and tuning tools provided- Fetching text files and image files is constrained

*Risks- Design complexity: Moderate to higher schedule risk of participants being

operational to support licensing and moderate schedule risk for LSNA to haveoperational for licensing

- Integration issues: Moderate implementation complexity risk to participantsand moderate complexity of integration risk for LSNA

* Costs

a - Lowest cost for the NRC

-Variable cost burden to participants to do system administration and datamanagement


- f.lternative 4:Campus Portal/ParticipantMaintained Proximate Storage

DESCRIPTION:

: IMPLICATIONS:

* Participar- Ensures

- Remote

.1R -R CRespons

- Respons

'>,;' * Ease of u- Very flex- Consiste

-Lower le,

- Respons

Image atT .;

*t-. e-.4 W ,; :. .. . .: ' I I , ... ..

Portal software indexes files maintained by participant webservers located at central site

it rolesfile delivery, but not bandwidth

administration required

1ible for availability and performance

;ible for a portion of the shared campus costs

sDe

:ible: users may freely customize desktop/interface

nt query screen

vel of availability

-e characteristics are predictable

id text delivery depends on participant resourcesFebruary 23, 2000

Page 20

(t-.A8ternative 4:Campus Portal/Participantntj ~' tained Proximate Storage (continued)

. ~ ~ "-" I _ ..... ....

....... .. ; . ; . . . ..

.. . .. . .

-: :: :DE(SISIf, e 9 9 9 s 5 .

.p..................

; - r ; * . .+st t

w - ;� t ffi ffi n rt i. v . d f S

I; ;s e � X Ats ,�; ti;

* " ' t ;;if__a;;E* 'I' - . w; ... ,_. .:

, . \ 4

: :.'., E' ' 1 -:' -: '::

.: ...̂_ ..:.

.: ;.' ...'. :'>. 8: ... z _.

.... , ..; ....; .-;

' ..: ,; ,--, :; .,

,, .:^ .; .:4-4 4* * A ,{ s w -

. W...,.,,§.9

,. ,,,. s.% ,< X

: .' -, .. ' ", -]

.^ / "' ..'. K .- ffi

;,>;.5:....;;*S_ ' ..;.__:i-7Es j" e-- -i . ..., . f I

._ ,f,, . q .F

m {s :|E ' . .i-. ,..5..^ -r ,- > I

i' .,. z .... .. ...

r, x _;

W.. L 6w.: . _

\.. ;.F-' ...; ¢';

th::1 'w'

.. '-:.1.7'

si 9 r b ' ' .1 S

t:t, in?

, I !' .i..-,>:.^e',:-.'

.: ;.* J,.,.,,.,.r,

W. :.

,,::,i . .d. X,

! .^

)N FACTORS:

LSNA administrative control

- LSNA controls search, interface, security, and access

- Monitoring and tuning tools provided

Risks- Design complexity: Higher schedule risk of participants being operational to

support licensing and moderate-to-high schedule risk for LNSA to haveoperational for licensing

- Integration issues: Moderate-to-high implementation complexity risk toparticipants and LSNA

Costs- Moderate cor

- Variable costmanagement

A to the NRC

burden to participants to perform system administration and data(some presence at the central site is required)


Alternative 5:Distributed Portal!Enhanced Central Storage

; -_ _ i__. = =.... :V.'.. >

.'.DESCRIPTION: Remote portal software indexes files maintained by participantsat their sites. Portal, with enhanced central storage, maintainscopy of participant site. Local cache ensures timely delivery touser.

'IMIPLICATIONS:

Participant Roles- Decreased requirement for system management-No 24 X 7 availability requirement

*.Ease of use- Very flexible: users can tailor desktop/interface- Consistent query screen

Highest level of availability- Response characteristics are predictable

r .


Le 9t->!Alternative 5:Distributed Portal/Enhnhanced Central Storage (continued)

'DECISION FACTORS:

LSNA Administrative Control

- LSNA controls search, interface, security, and access

- Enhanced monitoring and tuning tools provided- Assured interface performance and assured file delivery performance

* Risks

- Design complexity: Higher schedule risk of participants being operational tosupport licensing, and moderate-to-high schedule risk for LNSA to haveoperational for licensing

.-z! - Integration issues: Low implementation complexity risk to participants andmoderate-to-high integration risk to LSNA

- LSNA bears responsibility for accuracy/availability of participant documents

Costs- Highest cost to the NRC

- Lowest (operational) cost burden to participantsFebruary 23, 2000

Page 23

K OUTLIN. .. ..* ': " . .!. . :. : .

7-

ET Summary of October and DecemberTechnical Work Group Meetings

El Overview of Alternatives

E Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 - Description,implications, and decision factors

General ExpendituresAssessment

Summary and Next StepsFebruary 23, 2000

Page 24

Cost to EstablishWeb Presence

I *~e I I

34

I

4,

5,

Web serverimplementation 500 - 5,000 1,000 - 50,000 20,000+

Maintenance and 5,000- 10,000 5,000 - 15,000 10,000+administration (annual)

Communications (annual) 600- 12,000 3,000- 18,000 6,000+

Web server 500- 5,000 1,000 - 50,000 20,000+implementation

Maintenance and 30,000 - 60,000 30,000 - 90,000 60,000+administration (annual)**

Communications (annual) 100- 2,000 100 - 2,000 100-2,000

Web server 500 -5,000 1,000- 50,000 20,000+implementation

Maintenance and 5,000- 10,000 5,000-15,000 10,000+administration (annual) 5

Communications (annual) 600 - 4,000 1,200 - 6,000 6,000+

Table presents reasonable cost ranges only. Upper range of costs may be significantly higher.* Document conversion costs will be significant and are predicated on size and type of collection** Includes partial FTEs February 23, 2000- Page 25

General Expenditures AssessmentAmong Alternatives 3, 4, and 5

.. . . .....

*4.. ... . . .. .. .. ..

... ;..................... ..... . .

...... ... ; .

"' !''':':.-':':::.'',':, :-:, t :v iXK, .:;

' ' *k;' ''4"i :,-i ',+. ^,,N,|,1

- ;,. ;U;,, ..,_. 5

ir-�-�rlf 48Labsio-<

i jl i. .: , .. :;

; ',,+ S=

: ' "-'X, ' .- '. ''..:: - -. ':

,. ;.,., ,.:.:. .., ,j ... .... . ....

.., 9

': '':'.;.; -.: .- '

,R', .,.',-;'

i ' H:' .B: .:

{i,,f,,. '.',-'!,S

., i'- ,,,:s

.:E, -; ,,,, -, .;N

;;4.'iX Ki *+ 14.. ;.' i'::. ,-.;..Y

.,4 >,� A-: w- .!

> r.: f* !-. es .. ., / :j

r; 3i Sl s :� i l ;*; LL-., ,OSLESS

i)u- .h-

q , t

i -1,

I 1

$ s *K ..

t -- ;,.. .

, . .,.

,. .... :

[.........it4',.,',,71 1

P:":.r Lij...,., {

st v rt .,j Consists;F �;. .' Travel c,. .- ' NOTa 9,w-i * First yd

- _ ..... . -N-7'~ .' . --., I. .. _.; .. .z ' _. * , .. -. . ,,,, .-.. . . I 2, I,$; .', _, ' '

A V&&e

; of LSNA portion onlyosts not includedguotation - for general use onlygar


W ! !~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .. .. ... .. ..... .. .

..*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .. ..- .. .....

Summary of October and DecemberTechnical Work Group Meetings

El~ Overview of Alternatives

El~ Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 -Description,implications, and decision factors

General Expenditures Assessment

U Summary and Next StepsF.bruar) 23, 2000

' .*.*:P Pa: 27

Decision Factors

t.,::. .. - , . - I . I .- . I- I . � .- 11 �.. .'. - -. . I.-,-."..'-- I- - .- I. I --. - , 1 . .- -- 11 .1 :. , -. e. , - - -__ 1, 1. __....... ... ....... ........ .... . ..... ................ ......... ... ... ... .. . ..

.J.

A

.

r

Most predictable response to user request for documents(lowers reliance on expensive bandwidth) VI- VsLeast complex design(lowers risk of LSN completion delay)

Lowest level of integration(lowers risk of LSN completion delay)

Most well-defined administrative framework (lowers risk of V'unanticipated shared costs and intra-participant interference)

Most readily identified document delivery accountability (lowersrisk of inability to ascertain compliance with Rule)

Lowest cost to participants

Lowest cost to LSNA

Lowest cost overall


N^ext Steps

Seek LSNARP Endorsement or Consensus Preference

-Discard of alternatives 1 and 2

-Achieve consensus among alternatives 3, 4, and 5

* Finalize Functional Requirements

* LSN Administrator Prepares Capital Planning andInvestment Control (CPIC) Document

m Present CPIC with LSNARP's Advice to NRC'sExecutive Council

m Notify LSNARP of EC Approval or Decision

February 23, 2000

Page 29

~~~~~~V .. " ' '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '~~~~.. . ...4 "'1'' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .! r

-"'.4

� 4

I -

'4 �

* .4..'. ,i

44

'4

L.

I - I �"' - :.. , ., : �!�, '. �I" .:..: ,.1, . ., ,. .- : , -" . . 1. .1 � 1. z I. - .1 1" 1.- ,:'':." " ,..�.., 1, .1 I... .. . ., I .. . .. ...... . .., ..... ., � t - - 'L�I'.,'.-- I- "I- --.'- 'l- 1;1 11-1. 1� .1 - -- , . � I - �- � - I -.1 - - �. 11 .. ., '. . � , --, , .'.. - . . . ... . - ..

-L�- ': .- -, , - -:,� , :, ,,, ... ... - - -l-, - - , I - . I I I " . 1 I 1-1 . -- --- - -- -- - --

APPENDIX

Alternatives I and 2 - Strategies

and Final Findings

Februar 23, 2000Page 30

Alternative 1:

Simplified StrategyI _ ; A I- i L L- .....

DESCRIPTION: Homepage with pointers to other home pages

IMPLCATIONS:

Participant roles- Each participant maintains fully capable storage, search, and retrieval capability- Participant is totally responsible for availability, performance, and bandwidth

. :* Ease of use-Difficult for users to tailor desktop/interface-Difficult to use: multiple interfaces, one per collection/serverAlternative availability: if one participant is "down," the rest are still available

-Response time performance is variableOverall performance is variable


6,>^gW-! Alternative 1:

Simplified Strategy (continued):--DECISION FACTORS:

LSNA administrative control- Participant site variety means LSNA has no systematic control

- LSNA unable to respond quickly to performance problems- Certification of integrity requires:

/ Heavy auditing

i Highly structured guidelines and procedures

Risks

- Design complexity: Low schedule risk of having ready for licensing; moderateschedule risk of participants being operational to support licensing

- Integration issues: Low implementation complexity risk to participants andlow complexity of integration risk

Costs

0. ~ jw- Lowest cost to NRC

- Low cost burden to participantsFebru ag 23, 2000

7- '' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Page 32

Alternative I Findings

. ________ .... .... ..

.. 'DESCRIPTION: Homepage with pointers to other home pages

: ,,-- . Why alternative 1 does not meet requirements:- Too complex for users- User interface not consistent- Too difficult to navigate- Not possible to aggregate information- Not versatile- Does not meet needs of large, complex discovery system- Potentially excludes some participants and "tilts the playing

field" for others.

ALTERNATIVE 1 is notrecommended to the LSNARP

.5 7 .; at; F e b r u a r y 2 3 , 2 0 0 0A I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~age 33

Alternative 2:Moderate Strategy

DESCRIPTION: Centralized search interface

. IMPLICATIONS:

Participan- Each par

capability

- Participaisearch in

t rolesticipant maintains fully capable storage, search, and retrieval

nt is totally responsible for availability and performance, but relieved ofterface

Ease of use- Relatively inflexible: difficult for users to tailor desktop/interface

- Consistent query screen- Alternative availability: if one participant is "down," the rest are still available

- Response time performance is variable

- Overall performance is variableFebruary 23, 2000

Page 34

tt- <;X>;11,¢C>@X Alternative 2:lModerate Strategy (continued)

DECISION FACTORS:

LSNA administrative control

- Rudimentary LSNA control on interface and searching- LSNA unable to respond quickly to performance problems

- Certification of integrity requires:/ Heavy auditing

/ Highly structured guidelines and procedures

*Risks-Design complexity: Moderately low schedule risk of having ready for licensing;

* ~~high schedule risk of participants being operational to support licensing-Integration issues: Low implementation complexity risk to participants andmo0derately low complexity of integration risk

Costs-Low cost to NRC

~~j. - Variable cost burden to participants to perform system administrationFebruary 23. 2000

Page 35

Alternative 2 Findings

. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ... ;,. ~ ~ .

-....DESCRIPTION: Centralized search interface, ,, A ,. ....... .'

:* Why Alternative 2 does not meet requirements:

- Interleaving result sets while preserving "relevancy" will not be easy

- HTML forms query must be supported by each of the underlying sites(and this could be problematic to those participants on a leased site)

- Use of multiple search engines detracts from the consistency ofretrieval results

- Reduces the overall capability to a level on par with the least capablesearch software provided by any single participant

- Thesauri may not be supported

K-!1 - Increasing the required level of sophistication to meet basic functionswill levy requirements on participants to provide some search enginecapabilities at their site.

February 23, 20004'.;; Page 36

Alternative 2 Findings (continued)

mi .- Why Alternative 2 does not meet requirements (continued):i "Lowest common denominator" effect may actually increase cost byrequiring additional query tools and strategies, additional userassistance and documentation, increase the requirement forvocabulary management, and require significant customization.

-Poses greatest risk (of obtaining inappropriate query results) to theleast skilled users

- While it appeared initially to be a less costly approach to implementingthe LSN, by the time that the required additional features were added,it would approach or exceed the cost of simply purchasing the portalapproach presented in technical solution 3.

-Agreement was reached that Alternative 2 would not be recommendedto the full LSNARP.

ALTERNATIVE 2 is notrecommended to the LSNARP


7i s1

..Jj1

I

6 .

DarGraser -DRAFTTWG Presentation Materials for Feb 23 ARP ... · X Audit system for LSNA X Use NRC...

Documents

Transcript of DarGraser -DRAFTTWG Presentation Materials for Feb 23 ARP ... · X Audit system for LSNA X Use NRC...