Dear Tim, Fred, Hiromi, Aleksandar and fellow GSICSers, I have been asked to organize the evaluation process of our first products ... the GSICS GEO-LEO Correction for SEVIRI-IASI, GOES-IASI/GOES-AIRS and MTSAT-IASI/MTSAT-AIRS.  The process consists of the following steps: 1) Filling out and submitting the attached GSICS Product Acceptance Form and its supporting material; 2) Evaluation of Form by the Product Acceptance Review Board.   Successful review from this board means the product will enter a Demonstration Mode within GSICS.  If the board asks for clarification or changes, then a dialog will continue between the product provider and the Review Board until all issues are resolved. 3) Evaluation of Form by the GSICS Executive Panel.  Successful review from the Panel means the product is given the full Stamp of Approval as a GSICS product.  If the Panel asks for clarification or changes, then a dialog will continue between the product provider and the Review Board until all issues are resolved.  Then it will again be brought up before the Executive Panel. More information about this process can be gleaned from the attached GSICS Procedure for Product Acceptance document. At this time, I am asking each of you to complete the attached GSICS Product Acceptance Form, so that we can begin the evaluation of your GSICS products.  I would like the form completed by Friday January 8, 2010. I have decided to use the GSICS-Research Google Group during this premier of the evaluation process, to allow other GSICS Researchers that may be submitting products to see how the process works, and also give them the opportunity to join the discussion. Thank you. Please feel free to ask questions and make comments. Best Regards, Bob

Hi Bob, Thanks for putting this acceptance procedure together. It seems pretty comprehensive. I had another look through it, preparing to fill it in for our SEVIRI-IASI GSICS Correction. I found this to be a very useful exercise as it revealed a lot of questions about the procedure and more general comments about GSICS. I have detailed some of these below, for which I would welcome the group's input before finalising this. II.1.  Brief Product De_script_ion (1 page or less) Should we just refer to the product’s ‘ReadMe’ document here? This should cover all the questions II.1 to II.3. If we copy-and-paste it into this document it will become more difficult to maintain in future. III.1.A  Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document (ATBD) Can we make the ATBDs and other supporting documentation available alongside the products themselves on the GSICS Data and Products Servers? III.1.B  Plan to Establish Measurement Traceability to Reference Standards In many cases the traceability is dependent on the choice of a reference instrument. As such, would it make sense for us to have a central document describing the traceability of the reference instruments selected by GSICS? If so, who will be responsible for producing and maintaining this? III.2.C Making Cal/Val Measurements Would it be better to ask first how the product was validated? III.2.D  Version Control Plan Would it be better to ask about the version control plans for documents, software and models in each sections covering each of these topics, rather than in a separate section? III.2.D.4  Measurements What measurements are being referred to here that need a version control plan? III.3.B Operations/Distributions Plan As with III.1.B, would we be better to cover this topic centrally – at least for those products that will be available through the GSICS Data and Products Servers? Then we could just provide a _link_ to that document here and include a check on compliance with their Operations/Distribution plan. And, more trivially: 1.4.E FAX - Do we really need to list a fax number? Seems like a redundant reference to obsolete technology. I would welcome everyone's thoughts on these issues by 8 Jan as we may need to discuss some of these items at the meeting in Toulouse. Cheers, Tim - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Hi Tim, Thank you for your questions. I have tried to answer them in-line below. Best Regards, Bob - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Hi Bob, Thank you for your clear explanation. I think I understood how to fill in the form thanks to your information. I am sorry for my late reply. I tried to fill in the form for JMA's GSICS Correction of MTSAT-IASI even though it has not been completed yet. As Tim might suggest before, I prepared one page read me instead of the de_script_ion for section II. It was _base_d on Tim's read me file introduced at the past web meeting. I attached both of the GPAF file and one page read me file. As for the form file, I tried to modify your file a little. As you can see, check box and text box are used to fill in the form. It seems to be convenient to handle the form. Best regards, Hiromi Robert Iacovazzi < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 送信者: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 2009/12/23 01:22 This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it へ 返信してください 宛先 This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it cc 件名 Re: [gsics-research] Re: GSICS Procedure for Product Acceptance Hi Hiromi, Great questions and you understand quite well.  I will try to summarize and clarify your comments ... 1) Yes, the GSICS Product Acceptance Form (GPAF) Package is composed of the completed GPAF form and any electronic copies of documents.  You do not need to provide the electronic copies of documents if you provide _link_s to them in the GPAF. 2) I think the GPAF is unclear with respect to the cal/val measurements section, and I need to revise it.  Until then, here is my guidance for you.   The purpose of Section III is to clearly outline the implementation strategy for the product.  During the course of creating a product, you need to establish a calibration reference (preferably international standards traceable), create software, utilize radiative transfer models, and/or make supporting measurements.  For example, I know that JMA uses a gap-filling technique when using AIRS as a reference.  In this gap-filling technique, a radiative transfer model is used, which needs to be clearly described for the data users in the GPAF Section III.2.B.  In regards to Section III.1.B, you need to state your references (AIRS and IASI) and find as much supporting material regarding their absolute and long-term calibration quality.  If you cannot find anything, then you are using a reference of unknown quality or uncertainty, and need to state this.  Tim brought up the idea of a GSICS Standards Expert.  I agree wholeheartedly about this.  We at GSICS need to know the quality of the reference standards that we are using for calibration. On the other hand, no supporting measurements - surface radiometers, all-sky cameras, surface thermistors, soundings, etc. - were made for the GEO-LEO inter-comparison scenes.  Thus, Section III.2.C is not applicable for JMA, or any other GEO-LEO IR inter-comparison method.   3) Yes, as I mention above, you need report the use of the LBLRTM for the gap-filling method.  Since you use a well-documented model, you need only to supply _link_s to the information requested by the GPAF. Arigatou gozaimasu, Hiromi. Best Regards, Bob Hiromi said the following on 12/21/2009 9:43 PM: Hi Bob and Tim, I almost understood about the GSICS Procedure for Product Acceptance thanks to Bob's information. I tried to fill in the draft GPAF for the GSICS Correction referring your mails, but I couldn't do it. I have some questions. 1. What is GPAF Package ? I guess GPAF Package is one set for Procedure for Product Acceptance and it is consisted of the GPAF itself and other electronic copies of the documents. Is it right? 2. I don't know what I should fill in III.1.B and III.2.C specifically. In GEO-LEO inter calibration's case, is reference standard corresponding to IASI or AIRS? Is Making Cal/Val Measurements the method to compare GEO and IASI or AIRS? 3. I don't know what I should fill in III.2.B. As you know, gap filling method is used in GEO-LEO inter calibration method. It uses the simulated radiances which had been calculated by LBLRTM in advance. In this case, should I describe about LBLRTM in this term? I think we would be happy if there were one example to fill in the GPAF. The GPAF for GSICS Correction may become the examples. Best regards, Hiromi Hi Tim, Thank you for your questions. I have tried to answer them in-line below. Best Regards, Bob - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -