MAST Integration Review
A few comments from people about MIDAS tool
- Using MIDAS tool set to derive desirable configurations may introduce risks since most of technologies in MAST don't exist today, and MIDAS tools depend on a lot of assumptions and hypotheses. How can we manage these risks? (Dr. Brian Sadler at ARL)
- The scoring metrics in MIDAS tool set are qualitative, not quantitative.
- There were some concerns as to whether the MIDAS tool is actually research. Tools definitely need to be developed for research, but the importance is in the results, not the tool itself. ARL wanted to see more results and less development.
People seemed to expect more accurate schedules of experimentations, MAST Fair, etc. from us.
- I (Hoam) guess there were too much "big picture" stuffs in Shankar's slides...
- We may need to make time lines for experiments this year.
Ankur's mote got lots of attention from various people
- Dr. Mark Bundy wanted Ankur to co-work with miniature IMU design team at ARL.
- Dr. Tom Collins from AM3 wanted to use GINA motes on their surrogate platforms.
Feedback from ARL
- Comments from ARL will be available in mid June. They will have a meeting after all the PI Review Meetings, and generate comments to each center.
- This also will initiate the process of Annual Programming Plan for 2010.
- Prepare a webex seminar about Ankur's mote and broadcast that this will be available to the consortium.
- We also may add details about our experiments - time lines, what we will do, and so on.
- Also advertising MAST Fair?