Äîêóìåíò âçÿò èç êýøà ïîèñêîâîé ìàøèíû. Àäðåñ îðèãèíàëüíîãî äîêóìåíòà : http://www.adass.org/adass/proceedings/adass94/chavana.ps Äàòà èçìåíåíèÿ: Tue Jun 13 20:45:00 1995 Äàòà èíäåêñèðîâàíèÿ: Tue Oct 2 01:17:53 2012 Êîäèðîâêà: Ïîèñêîâûå ñëîâà: ð ð ð ð ð ð ï ï ð ð

Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV
ASP Conference Series, Vol. 77, 1995
R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, and J. J. E. Hayes, eds.
An Information System for Proposal Submission and
Handling
A. M. Chavan and M. A. Albrecht
European Southern Observatory, Karl­Schwarzschild­Str. 2, D­85748
Garching, Germany
Abstract. The Proposal Handling and Reporting System (PHRS) is a
software system aimed at supporting ESO's Observing Programme Com­
mittee (OPC) during the entire review process of the Observing Time
Proposals. Proposals are written in a mark­up language based on L A T E X
and are submitted via e­mail. PHRS maintains a database of validated
proposals, and operators are enabled to browse it via user­friendly GUI
tools, developed using Tcl/Tk. Referees receive PHRS generated printed
reports, and submit proposal ratings via e­mail. Panel and OPC meet­
ings are supported by interactive data entry tools and printed documents;
in order to obtain high­quality output, all printed reports are processed
via L A T E X. The final telescope schedule is published both on­line (World
Wide Web) and in printed form.
PHRS was already successfully employed twice (for Periods 54 and
55), handling over 250 (peak) proposal submissions per day.
1. Introduction
Astronomers who wish to use ESO's facilities in La Silla (Chile) must submit
Observing Time Proposals (henceforth simply proposals), indicating which fa­
cilities they want to use, when and for how long, and the science they want to
perform. All submitted proposals are peer­reviewed and ranked by the Observ­
ing Program Committee (OPC) of ESO; the best proposals are finally assigned
observing time at one of the telescopes in La Silla. This process takes several
weeks, twice each year, and involves tens of people both within and outside
ESO; more than one thousand investigators submit a total of over five hundred
proposals each observing period.
The Proposal Handling and Reporting System (PHRS) at ESO is a software
system aimed at tackling this problem and supporting the OPC. An entirely
new version was developed in 1994, drawing on the experience gained during
some years' experience with a previous, less comprehensive system. PHRS han­
dles proposals throughout the entire review process: submission, storage, ref­
eree evaluation, panel discussion, OPC recommendation, and time assignment
(scheduling).
1

2
3
Investigators
SUBMIT
OBSERVING TIME
PROPOSALS
ESOFORM
package
1
EVALUATE
AND GRADE
PROPOSALS
2
RANK
PROPOSALS
Ratings
Proposal
archive
Proposals,
summaries
SCHEDULE
OBSERVING
PROGRAMMES 4
Ranked
proposals
Referees
Panels, OPC
ESO
Directorate
Schedule
Proposal
archive
Proposal
archive
Figure 1. The proposal submission and review process.
2. Proposal Review Process
Figure 1 shows how the review process proceeds from proposal submission to
publication of the final schedule, which is described below.
2.1. Proposal Submission and Archiving
Proposals need to be both computer­readable and nicely formatted on paper. We
achieved both goals by developing a mark­up language based on L A T E X macros:
the new commands give the proposal its appropriate look and are easily parsed
to extract relevant information. The ESOFORM package, which can be down­
loaded to each investigator's site, contains all necessary style files, template
Observing Time applications, user manuals and period­related technical infor­
mation. When printed at ESO, a submitted proposal looks identical to the
proposal on the investigator's desk---thus eliminating the need for paper copy
submission. Investigators write their proposals, print them at their institute for
verification, and then send them via e­mail to ESO.
Here, a ``receiver'' program verifies that all mandatory information was
provided, then stores valid proposals in a database---the ``proposal archive.'' No
manual intervention is necessary: in fact, PHRS can operate unattended around
the clock, and it proved able to cope with over 250 e­mail messages per day
(usually on the last day before the deadline). Investigators normally get an
acknowledgment message back within a minute or so of their submission; errors
found in proposals are reported in detail. The authors went to great lengths to
avoid data loss, even in the case of hardware failure.
The proposal archive is based on relational data base management technol­
ogy, the same used in the STARCAT system (Pirenne et al. 1993). Operators
interface with the archive with user­friendly, GUI­based tools, developed using
Tcl/Tk (Ousterhout 1994). Since most of the data in the archive is classified, at
least until schedule publication, we had to insure that only authorized operators
could access it.

3
The system is network oriented, but it is flexible enough to allow for regular
(post) mail submission of proposals as well. In some special cases, investigators
submit printed proposals, and operators need to type the proposal's main data
into the database.
2.2. Peer Review
Valid proposals are peer­reviewed. Each referee reviews several proposals of the
same category (for instance, category C groups proposals dealing with ``Inter­
stellar and intergalactic mediums''): he/she is required to rate them, by giving a
grade---expressing the proposal's scientific merit---and a recommended number
of nights (and, often, explanatory remarks). The same proposal is refereed by
two or three different people.
Referees receive a printed copy of the proposals they must review and a set of
summary reports generated by PHRS; these are printed via L A T E X, with the goal
of providing appropriate documents, where scientific symbols and non­English
names are correctly printed. Referees are also provided with a pre­initialized,
e­mailed form (called a ``report card'') which they must fill in with ratings and
comments. In order to eliminate possible errors, completed report cards are then
returned via e­mail, and later processed by PHRS to extract and store ratings
in the proposal archive.
2.3. Discussion and Ranking
The final step in the review process is the ranking of proposals, and it is a
two­phase activity. Initially, all referees of the same category meet in a panel;
they discuss each proposal belonging to the category, and agree on a final grade
and recommended number of nights. The goal of panel discussion is to rank all
proposals in one category according to their scientific value: better proposals
are more likely to be assigned observing time, and telescopes are often oversub­
scribed by a factor of four or more.
PHRS supports the panels with more summary reports and interactive tools:
since panels can directly update the proposal archive, there is no need to re­type
information, thus eliminating possible errors; and panels can explore alternative
rankings with respect to the number of available observing nights. Some data
summaries are generated in spreadsheet format, for further processing and chart
generation.
When the panels have completed their task, it is the OPC's responsibility
to harmonize rankings across different categories and telescopes. A ``cutoff line''
separates the best proposals from those that will receive telescope time only if
there is any time left, and the OPC ensures that proposals of different categories
are evenly distributed around the line. PHRS provides per­telescope and per­
category cutoff line reports to support OPC discussion.
2.4. Scheduling
Once the OPC has finalized its decisions, it is the ESO's directorate responsi­
bility to distribute observing proposals (which are now called ``observing pro­
grammes'') over the range of available nights. This is a very complex and delicate
process, and it is currently performed by hand; we plan to integrate telescope
scheduling within PHRS as our next project. The final schedule is both stored in

4
the proposal archive and published. ESO distributes the schedule document to
all interested investigators, and we also developed a World Wide Web interface
to the schedule archive 1 for on­line browsing.
3. Conclusions and Future Directions
Some recent advances in technology have made PHRS possible: (1) widespread
Internet access enables most investigators to use FTP and e­mail for their sub­
mission, (2) ``client­server'' software techniques increase the system's modularity,
reliability and efficiency, (3) easy to develop, ``point­and­click'' Graphical User
Interfaces (GUI's) minimize operator training and reduce errors, and (4) cen­
tralized information storage, coupled with appropriate software tools, enable
support staff to meet deadlines, providing timely and accurate information to
the OPC.
A number of problems have arisen with the use of this new system, the
main one being the inability to check the correctness of some user supplied
information: for instance, investigators writing a (first) name where a surname
(family name) is needed, and vice­versa.
Future projects include support for Observation Preparation (Phase II pro­
posals), and both long­ and short­term scheduling (telescope scheduling and
observation scheduling). Finally, in order to reduce bulky paper shipments,
we are investigating the possibility of having referees download proposals and
reports from an FTP account.
Acknowledgments. The authors are grateful to J. Breysacher, C. Euler,
E. Hoppe and G. Meylan, whose feedback was invaluable, and who guided our
understanding of the issues involved in the design of PHRS.
References
Pirenne, B., Albrecht, M., Durand, D., & Gaudet, S. 1993, in Astronomical Data
Analysis Software and Systems II, ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 52, eds. R. J.
Hanisch, R. J. V. Brissenden, & J. Barnes (San Francisco, ASP), p. 95
Ousterhout, J. 1994, Tcl and the Tk Toolkit (Reading, Addison­Wesley)
1 http://arch­http.hq.eso.org/cgi­bin/wdb/eso/sched rep/form