International Federation of Digital Seismograph Networks

Thread: RE: REMINDER Business Meetings during IAG-IASPEI Scientific Assembly in Kobe

None
Started: June 22, 2017, 1:03 p.m.
Last activity: July 31, 2017, 7:29 p.m.
Dear members of FDSN-WG1



As I have announced last month, FDSN working group 1 meeting will be held on July 31st at 12-13:30 in room 503. Please let me know the issues to be discussed. I have attached minutes of the last meeting for your reference.



Regards,

Seiji Tsuboi



From: Seiji Tsuboi [tsuboi<at>jamstec.go.jp]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 3:41 PM
To: 'fdsn-wg1-stations<at>lists.fdsn.org'
Subject: FW: REMINDER Business Meetings during IAG-IASPEI Scientific Assembly in Kobe



Dear members of FDSN-WG1



The schedule of next meeting in Kobe is almost fixed now on July 31st.

Please let me know the issues to be discussed in the next meeting.



Regards,

Seiji Tsuboi


Attachments
  • Dear members of FDSN-WG1

    I have prepared a draft agenda of WG-1 meeting and attached with this email. Please let me know additional the issues to be discussed.

    Regards,
    Seiji Tsuboi

    Attachments
    • Here is what I found on the WGI mail list


      http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/thread/44/

      I copied the text of the mail thread berlow



      Tim Ahern

      Director of Data Services
      IRIS

      IRIS DMC
      1408 NE 45th Street #201
      Seattle, WA 98105

      (206)547-0393 x118
      (206) 547-1093 FAX

      Dear FDSN WG1 members,

      Here are some suggestions for discussion on increasing the size of the
      FDSN Backbone.

      Best regards,

      Rhett

      ===

      First, a very brief history. The FDSN Backbone was "originally" the
      FDSN network. At the Potsdam meeting in 2004, FDSN members expressed
      their interest that their networks actually become part of the FDSN
      network. To include this concept and still to maintain a globally-
      distributed, high-quality, openly-exchange subset of the FDSN network,
      the former FDSN network was re-named the FDSN Backbone Network. This
      FDSN Backbone has been largely unchanged in about 5 years, at about
      200+ stations.

      Therefore, there are actually two FDSN networks: The Network of all
      FDSN stations, and a globally-distributed subset, the FDSN Backbone.

      In principle, the "all-FDSN" network is contained in the FDSN
      spreadsheet, and the Backbone is composed of those stations designated
      by asterisks* in this list. The "all-FDSN" list is now increasingly
      difficult to maintain, given the growth of broadband networks.

      Before focusing on the Backbone, let me suggest that we need to define
      and maintain the "all-FDSN" network with a working subset of those
      stations which FDSN members want to exchange openly. Let's consider
      this "virtual network" as _FDSN-all. This list would include for each
      participating FDSN network, the network code, station code, data
      center(s) where data are accessible, and real-time and/or archival
      status. This _FDSN-all is implicitly a distributed network, and FDSN
      data centers would need to work out bilateral ways to link to and
      openly distribute the data. By necessity, for the data to be
      exchangeable, it would need to conform to basic standards (SEED being
      our key FDSN standard, but some FDSN data centers may possess the
      means for more diverse translation of formats, e.g., CD 1.x, antelope,
      etc).

      By participating in this _FDSN-all, a member FDSN network could then
      distribute its data more easily to the global community through the
      existing infrastructure of FDSN data centers. The participation would
      be voluntary. Some FDSN members might choose to distribute their data
      only through its own data center request mechanisms. Others might want
      to share some stations openly, but retain closer distribution of other
      stations in their networks. Some FDSN members may wish all of their
      data to be openly distributed. Note, in this latter case that there
      are now many FDSN members effectively
      doing this through mechanisms available at FDSN data centers.


      At this time, the FDSN Backbone is about 200 stations. To effectively
      halve the inter-station spacing, about 4 times as many stations are
      needed. Therefore, the next order (octave) of global coverage is about
      800-1000 stations. Even a 1000 stations does not pose a difficulty
      archiving with current Internet and data storage capabilities. One
      hard part is maintaining the meta-data. Our current Backbone is based
      upon good meta-data, and this should continue to be a standard. If
      real-time data are available, this sharing should be encouraged (an
      FDSN goal is "Improving Access to data in real time"), but not be
      required. The current Backbone emphasizes very-broadband stations (the
      STS-1 was the original favorite), so that three channels of very-
      broadband are favored. However, there are now many instances of
      quality, very broadband regional sensors with good S/N performance at
      longer periods. Future (near-term) planned stations should be
      considered for the Backbone if there is a funding commitment (this
      follows earlier FDSN precedent).

      The Backbone should emphasize high-quality, low noise stations. This
      is harder to define specifically. Many island stations are very-noisy,
      but provide essential coverage.

      Redundancy (in moderation) should be viewed as okay. Redundancy
      provides for some improvement on regional data availability. E.g., if
      two nearby stations each have about 80% uptime, their combined uptime
      may be better than 95% (assuming independence of cause for downtime).

      Currently, every FDSN member is encouraged to nominate at least 1
      station to the Backbone. Many FDSN networks do not now have a Backbone
      station. We should review this with FDSN members. Note also that many
      FDSN networks not represented yet in the Backbone already share good
      data (and meta-data) through one of the FDSN data centers. Perhaps,
      those FDSN data centers could nominate a known quality station on
      behalf of the FDSN member network donating the data (subject to their
      approval).

      I suggest extending this concept internationally (after all, the FDSN
      is the International Federation ...). Part of the densification of the
      Backbone could include FDSN stations in countries which are not are
      not in FDSN. The GSN and GEOSCOPE (and others) have many such examples
      (e.g., Solomon Islands and Senegal). There are an increasing number of
      FDSN members installing stations internationally. As FDSN has a role
      in GEO/GEOSS, extending international coverage of the Backbone (which
      is designated as a GEOSS observing component) broadens the
      participation of countries in global/regional seismology. Therefore,
      designating Backbone stations could include an element of extending
      the numbers of nations with a Backbone station(s).

      Another approach for Backbone densification is to improve coverage in
      seismogenic regions. This seems obvious to a seismologist. Many
      seismogenic zones span beyond local/regional/national network
      boundaries. Fostering international data exchange through the FDSN
      Backbone in seismogenic zones is commensurate with FDSN's goal of
      "Pursuing free and open access to data" and may help transcend other
      obstacles to regional data sharing. Here, real-time data would be best
      for earthquake response.

      To summarize extending the Backbone:

      . (very) Broadband
      . Global Coverage
      . Increase from current ~200 stations to (perhaps) 800-1000 stations
      through decreased inter-station spacing
      . Redundancy is good in moderation
      . High-quality data and meta-data
      . Real-time encouraged but not necessary
      . Every FDSN member should designate at least 1 station from their
      network
      . Broaden international coverage by FDSN stations
      . Enhance coverage in seismogenic zones (emphasizing real-time)

      On Jul 25, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Seiji Tsuboi <tsuboi<at>jamstec.go.jp> wrote:

      Dear members of FDSN-WG1

      I have prepared a draft agenda of WG-1 meeting and attached with this email. Please let me know additional the issues to be discussed.

      Regards,
      Seiji Tsuboi
      <FDSNWG1.ppt>
      ----------------------
      FDSN Working Group I (http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/topic/fdsn-wg1-stations/)

      Sent from the FDSN Message Center (http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/)
      Update subscription preferences at http://www.fdsn.org/account/profile/


      • Dear members of FDSN WGI



        Followings are the definition of backbone network described in the station
        inventory excel spread sheet until 2015.



        FEDERATION Backbone NETWORK STATION

        A subset of two hundred fifty stations chosen on the basis of hardware
        standards

        (VBB or BB and VLP, 3-component, dynamic range greater than 100db), noise
        characteristics,

        geographical location, and status (installed or installation imminent).



        24 new backbone stations are added in 2015.



        Regards,

        Seiji Tsuboi



        From: Tim Ahern [tim<at>iris.washington.edu]
        Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 12:51 PM
        To: Seiji Tsuboi
        Cc: FDSN Working Group I
        Subject: Re: [fdsn-wg1-stations] REMINDER Business Meetings during
        IAG-IASPEI Scientific Assembly in Kobe



        Here is what I found on the WGI mail list





        http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/thread/44/



        I copied the text of the mail thread berlow







        Tim Ahern

        Director of Data Services
        IRIS

        IRIS DMC
        1408 NE 45th Street #201
        Seattle, WA 98105

        (206)547-0393 x118
        (206) 547-1093 FAX



        Dear FDSN WG1 members,

        Here are some suggestions for discussion on increasing the size of the
        FDSN Backbone.

        Best regards,

        Rhett

        ===

        First, a very brief history. The FDSN Backbone was "originally" the
        FDSN network. At the Potsdam meeting in 2004, FDSN members expressed
        their interest that their networks actually become part of the FDSN
        network. To include this concept and still to maintain a globally-
        distributed, high-quality, openly-exchange subset of the FDSN network,
        the former FDSN network was re-named the FDSN Backbone Network. This
        FDSN Backbone has been largely unchanged in about 5 years, at about
        200+ stations.

        Therefore, there are actually two FDSN networks: The Network of all
        FDSN stations, and a globally-distributed subset, the FDSN Backbone.

        In principle, the "all-FDSN" network is contained in the FDSN
        spreadsheet, and the Backbone is composed of those stations designated
        by asterisks* in this list. The "all-FDSN" list is now increasingly
        difficult to maintain, given the growth of broadband networks.

        Before focusing on the Backbone, let me suggest that we need to define
        and maintain the "all-FDSN" network with a working subset of those
        stations which FDSN members want to exchange openly. Let's consider
        this "virtual network" as _FDSN-all. This list would include for each
        participating FDSN network, the network code, station code, data
        center(s) where data are accessible, and real-time and/or archival
        status. This _FDSN-all is implicitly a distributed network, and FDSN
        data centers would need to work out bilateral ways to link to and
        openly distribute the data. By necessity, for the data to be
        exchangeable, it would need to conform to basic standards (SEED being
        our key FDSN standard, but some FDSN data centers may possess the
        means for more diverse translation of formats, e.g., CD 1.x, antelope,
        etc).

        By participating in this _FDSN-all, a member FDSN network could then
        distribute its data more easily to the global community through the
        existing infrastructure of FDSN data centers. The participation would
        be voluntary. Some FDSN members might choose to distribute their data
        only through its own data center request mechanisms. Others might want
        to share some stations openly, but retain closer distribution of other
        stations in their networks. Some FDSN members may wish all of their
        data to be openly distributed. Note, in this latter case that there
        are now many FDSN members effectively
        doing this through mechanisms available at FDSN data centers.


        At this time, the FDSN Backbone is about 200 stations. To effectively
        halve the inter-station spacing, about 4 times as many stations are
        needed. Therefore, the next order (octave) of global coverage is about
        800-1000 stations. Even a 1000 stations does not pose a difficulty
        archiving with current Internet and data storage capabilities. One
        hard part is maintaining the meta-data. Our current Backbone is based
        upon good meta-data, and this should continue to be a standard. If
        real-time data are available, this sharing should be encouraged (an
        FDSN goal is "Improving Access to data in real time"), but not be
        required. The current Backbone emphasizes very-broadband stations (the
        STS-1 was the original favorite), so that three channels of very-
        broadband are favored. However, there are now many instances of
        quality, very broadband regional sensors with good S/N performance at
        longer periods. Future (near-term) planned stations should be
        considered for the Backbone if there is a funding commitment (this
        follows earlier FDSN precedent).

        The Backbone should emphasize high-quality, low noise stations. This
        is harder to define specifically. Many island stations are very-noisy,
        but provide essential coverage.

        Redundancy (in moderation) should be viewed as okay. Redundancy
        provides for some improvement on regional data availability. E.g., if
        two nearby stations each have about 80% uptime, their combined uptime
        may be better than 95% (assuming independence of cause for downtime).

        Currently, every FDSN member is encouraged to nominate at least 1
        station to the Backbone. Many FDSN networks do not now have a Backbone
        station. We should review this with FDSN members. Note also that many
        FDSN networks not represented yet in the Backbone already share good
        data (and meta-data) through one of the FDSN data centers. Perhaps,
        those FDSN data centers could nominate a known quality station on
        behalf of the FDSN member network donating the data (subject to their
        approval).

        I suggest extending this concept internationally (after all, the FDSN
        is the International Federation ...). Part of the densification of the
        Backbone could include FDSN stations in countries which are not are
        not in FDSN. The GSN and GEOSCOPE (and others) have many such examples
        (e.g., Solomon Islands and Senegal). There are an increasing number of
        FDSN members installing stations internationally. As FDSN has a role
        in GEO/GEOSS, extending international coverage of the Backbone (which
        is designated as a GEOSS observing component) broadens the
        participation of countries in global/regional seismology. Therefore,
        designating Backbone stations could include an element of extending
        the numbers of nations with a Backbone station(s).

        Another approach for Backbone densification is to improve coverage in
        seismogenic regions. This seems obvious to a seismologist. Many
        seismogenic zones span beyond local/regional/national network
        boundaries. Fostering international data exchange through the FDSN
        Backbone in seismogenic zones is commensurate with FDSN's goal of
        "Pursuing free and open access to data" and may help transcend other
        obstacles to regional data sharing. Here, real-time data would be best
        for earthquake response.

        To summarize extending the Backbone:

        . (very) Broadband
        . Global Coverage
        . Increase from current ~200 stations to (perhaps) 800-1000 stations
        through decreased inter-station spacing
        . Redundancy is good in moderation
        . High-quality data and meta-data
        . Real-time encouraged but not necessary
        . Every FDSN member should designate at least 1 station from their
        network
        . Broaden international coverage by FDSN stations
        . Enhance coverage in seismogenic zones (emphasizing real-time)



        On Jul 25, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Seiji Tsuboi <tsuboi<at>jamstec.go.jp
        <tsuboi<at>jamstec.go.jp> > wrote:



        Dear members of FDSN-WG1

        I have prepared a draft agenda of WG-1 meeting and attached with this email.
        Please let me know additional the issues to be discussed.

        Regards,
        Seiji Tsuboi
        <FDSNWG1.ppt>
        ----------------------
        FDSN Working Group I
        (http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/topic/fdsn-wg1-stations/)

        Sent from the FDSN Message Center (http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/)
        Update subscription preferences at http://www.fdsn.org/account/profile/