Subject: Notes on the current status of AstroWeb

From: [email-masked] (D. egret)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 94 17:41:13 +0200

Dear friends of AstroWeb,

As announced in my last mail to Anton, I (I should say: we, as this is 
the result of discussions with Andre) would like to raise some 
questions on the current and future status of AstroWeb, after some 
two months of existence.

1.  The original idea was to have an AstroWeb database, as complete and 
accurate as possible, kept up to date as quickly as possible, and with 
customized variations on the local sites. But I am afraid the last two 
months didn't show enough progress in this direction. Anton seems to have 
the most complete database, as of last week; but the overall strategy, 
as well as the strategy of each individual site (including ours!) 
is still largely unclear.

2.  For better achieving a real efficient, well identified, AstroWeb 
database of reference, we need updating tools: these tools have been 
partially developed (mainly by Don and Bob since the beginning), 
but we failed to install a fully working system; see some suggestions below.

3.  As a consequence of the current status of AstroWeb, the user 
cannot have a clear view of what AstroWeb is. Facing a number of 
different lists with heterogeneous coverage of the existing 
astronomical resources, the user has no way to know which one(s) he 
should use in order to best satisfy his requests.
We also still see people installing copies of one or another of the 
AstroWeb files on their local server without giving any credit to the 
AstroWeb group (see e.g. the MPIfR Bonn and Universitaet Wien 
servers), thus increasing the confusion (and our frustration !).
Our feeling is that if we cannot achieve to provide a "higher profile" 
of the AstroWeb work, we will not be able to convince the users that 
AstroWeb is the best place to search for links to astronomical Internet 
resources!

4. The reason why we insist in trying to provide a "top quality" 
AstroWeb, is that we feel it is the best way to help us keeping the 
sufficient motivation to maintain the database as accurate and complete 
as possible. Beyond the exciting development of new tools and new 
concepts, the task of maintaining the database, on a day-to-day basis, 
implies a level of motivation (in order to dedicate enough time to the task)
which can only be achieved (at least that's our feeling as a result of our own 
experience) if the "AstroWeb product" is successful within the 
astronomical community, and if proper credit is given to the people 
in charge of the work...

We would, therefore, like to propose some actions in order, to acquire 
and keep this status of "top quality database of reference".

5. The AstroWeb database:
The firt two steps are probably:
 (1) to bring all the local versions of AstroWeb to the same 
completeness level (i.e. something like the 883 URLs mentioned in 
Anton's message of last week)
 (2) to install the updating tools needed for additions, corrections and 
deletions of URLs, and for eventual mirror copies, in all the five sites.
These tools should be as automatic as possible, even if some human 
supervision is still needed...
Obviously we know how to achieve these two steps (from our 
discussions when the AstroWeb consortium was first set up). So, this 
probably means now: let's find the way to devote sufficient time in the 
next weeks (before the end of June ?) to the full installation of the 
tools, and to the coordination between the different sites.

6. AstroWeb policy:
6.1 We need to enter into the details of an AstroWeb policy: who is 
doing what; what is the role of each site; we also need to set up aims, 
and decide on methods and schedules for achieving them.
An example is the policy on additions, corrections and deletions. 
Among the possible strategies: one is to have each new finding 
circulated in a useful form (the inp_incoming file ? the astroweb 
exploder ? automatic checking of the difference between files ?); 
another one is to feed information into a central database (with 
the very promising tools built up by Bob).  
In the updating process, our appreciation of the relevance or qualification 
of a link may differ: we need to discuss how to sort that out.
6.2 With soon more than 1000 URLs we need to provide database tools 
and search mechanisms to help the user find his/her way in the 
jungle. These tools have to be discussed and optimized. Here again we 
know how to do it, and merely need to dicuss how to best implement 
them. For example, Andre has now decided to replace his files of 
anchors for organizations and for individuals by a simple form 
interface to a search mechanism. This also implies that we may choose 
to give access to the information without giving access to the whole 
file (thus preventing unwanted local copies).
6.3 The addition of descriptive texts, with the anchors is a very long
task, generating a series of questions (inhomegeneity, etc.).  
We have to find the best answers to this problem, and to keep the procedure
as simple as possible...
6.4 At the end, we should be able also to direct the user to a specific 
site, either for geographical reason, organisation (different sorting), 
search mechanism, etc.
6.5 We also need to discuss the general policy of inclusion of new 
resources: do we want to add extra care in the selection of the 
posted material: i.e. at the end should we go to a kind of refereeing system ? 
We want to avoid in the meantime to post "empty" services, 
and we need to keep track of the changing addresses...

7. Sharing the work ?
As a practical point, a way to be more efficient could be to share the 
work on a domain basis, such as letting Andre maintain the 
"individuals" list, or asking me to maintain the "Databases and 
Archives" domain. The responsible of a domain could combine his own 
findings with the ones sent by the other members of the consortium, 
or by the "incoming" files, etc.

8. AstroWeb visibility:
- Papers are in press in Astronomy&Astrophysics, and in the CDS 
Information Bulletin; there are other good places for such announcements:
local Newsletters, IAU commissions, colloquia (CODATA, ADASS, NCSA, etc.).
- We could give more visibility to the "AstroWeb concept" on the 
AstroWeb pages themselves (including a sentence encouraging to point 
to the AstroWeb pages rather to copy a *quickly outdated* page). This 
is currently present only in a fraction of the AstroWeb pages.
- An AstroWeb logo would be a very important addition to our AstroWeb
pages; this has already been mentioned once; does anybody have suggestions ?

A meeting of the whole group would be very welcomed in order to 
help setting up a common policy, and planning future perspectives. 
If you agree, an opportunity could be in Europe this summer, around 
the IAU General Assembly: we could plan a meeting either in The 
Hague, or somewhere else in Europe (Strasbourg might be a 
convenient place !).  
The alternative would be to keep using the e-mail...

Looking forward to reading your reactions !

Best regards
Daniel