19 April 2017

20 April 2017

21 April 2017

  • 08:30 - 10:00 Continued hackathon
  • 10:00 - 10:30 Brief report from each hackathon + discussion on results 
  • 10:30-10:45 coffee break
  • 10:45 – 11:15: – Discussion, OGC standardisation, needs for minor bodies, etc.
    • Needs of scientists for efficient planetary GIS-based mapping
    • Tools neeeded/missed
    • Guidelines for planetary mapping
    • Next steps
  • 11:15 - 11:45 Special issue - initial call for potential papers (see vespa-mapping2017-possible-papers)
  • 11:45 adjourn 

Expressions of interest for potential papers deriving from #vespamap17

Please add as either table entries or comments (or just email Angelo Pio Rossi and Trent Hare) to the vespa-mapping2017-possible-papers

  • No labels


    • OP Blog posts on the presented tools:
      • QGIS VESPA Plugins
      • (Planet)-Trek
      • Jupyter-related activities (Mario /' Baptiste / et al. )
      • App / registry tool design and needs / requirements (Nico / Emily ? / 
      • VESPA newcomer service set up experience (and feedback to VESPA Docs / etc.)
    • Cross-workshop - follow-up activities towards #PDW17 Spice web services / possible hackathon activities / cross-experiment tonal matching / 
    • What do we do with PlanetaryPy? How do we make it more sustainable / gathering vs. splitting modules/components, i.e. like astropy → #PDW17
  1. for future workshops

    • shorter keynotes, more hackathon time + focus on needs and technical problems/needs
    • lightning talks important to know what each is doing, to be shorter/sharper
    • guidelines of what (lightning) talks should cover needed beforehand (1st announcement)
    • Call for needs/requirements/problems to be addressed on community (e..g on 2nd announcement)
    • helpful for hackathons to get participants ahead of time to prepare, and/or to have virtual call to prepare (saving preparation time)
    • Suitable room setup for hackathons to be planned/prepared
    • important to mix devs and users.
    • for different hackathons participant blend might be different
    • sizing of workshop around 30-40 seems appropriate 
    • additional short meetings piggyback on existing meetings (e.g. LPSC, AGU, EGU, EPSC) to follow up in between (VESPA has already some half day VESPA splinter → that could also be an existing option
    • value of focused development (e.g. dataset-specific, for e.g. a module creation) during an hackathon
    • Not too many parallel activities and not too many hackathon challenges (depending on number of participants)
    • Need for continuity between hackathonrs / small followup piggyback meetints / OP / GitHub → post-hacakthon follow up 
    • Hackathon not necessarily generating something usable but good to generate ideas and drive developmemts
    • Need for participants to express requirements and go though (also ux) design process during the workshop/hackathon (where applicable, i.e. non-strictly coding)
    • add use cases to requirements (one could add as a lightning talk requirements a "please describe your use case(s)") - before the workshop (1st / 2nd announcement), e..g place inputs/reqs on a repository/wiki ahead of time