Nicely described - can we frame as a user story? As a vis infrastructure developer I want to streamline the process of visualization design So that they can develop a rich and relevant set of plots and dashboards efficiently What do you think?

Some evidence that this has been achieved would be great in sections 6 & 7. Can you talk to the designers and get feedback?

UPDATE! As a vis infrastructure developer I want to streamline the process of visualization design So that vis designers can develop a rich and relevant set of plots and dashboards efficiently

Mini-projects are attempting to do this. "VIS infrastructure developers" need to focus on the infrastructure. VIS designers focus on users, user tasks, and user models/data and design "rich" VIS. We then find resources to transform the designs to the VIS infrastructure.

I'm unlikely to get the user story right! But, does that mean that you can't develop a user story to describe who you are, what you are trying to do and why? If not, it's very difficult to fit this in to the format that we are trying to use to structure our thinking and explain our activities. I'd love it if the NINE of you, or even one of you, could capture what you were trying to do in a user story as requested?

OK - nice, add links to key & example data sources if you can.

It's really hard to use a STAR as the basis for this kind of description and reflection - but are there key concepts in there, perhaps those listed above and described in Figure 8 (which you could usefully reproduce here), that you could use as the basis for reflection? Which were most useful, which were most important, which were you wrong about, what have you had to modify in terms of your thinking when confronted with an emergency 15 years later?!

Too early to say. A lot of more work is needed for understanding such developments reasonably well.

It's not clear to me what we do with this idiom then. If it doesn't enable us to do any meaningful reflection, it doesn't sound as though it is going to produce a strong case for re-use elsewhere or any data that enables us to develop claims? Maybe the the work is too nascent to report on here in this way at this stage? Please let me know!

Can you say anything about how the thing you are talking about (the proposed VIS infrastructure) has been used? It would be good to say here that: it has never been implemented; or, they have one in Germany. Or whatever. What is the closest example of the thing you proposed that had been achieved prior to RAMP?

To our best knowledge, the recommended infrastructure has not been implemented. There were two UK grants that attempted to create such an infrastructure with STFC resources mainly. All failed. I guess that it it were not for an emergency response, we would not be able to gather a team of volunteers to develop such an infrastructure.

The thing I am trying to get you to reflect on here is how the _proposed VIS infrastructure_ - the one you describe nicely in the paper, that's your idiom - was used in the emergency response to configure the volunteers and technology into an infrastructure to support SCRC. I'm hoping you'll explain what that proposal was (the one that was not funded and never implemented) and how it helped with the RAMP efforts and what you learned about it through this experience. What worked, what didn't, what needed to be adapted to fit the RAMP context, how do you feel about it now having actually used it for something. Does it (the model, the proposed VIS infrastructure model, not the RAMPVIS infrastructure) still work, does it need adjustment, would you use it again in another emergency, etc.

This is very hard for **me** to understand and I think I am a visualization designer. We need a general audience to know what you did and why it was useful in light of the user story that is the focus of your efforts. So we need a bit more here really for this to be persuasive.

The story seems to be that we didn’t have the infrastructure proposed in 2004, but when confronted with an emergency we had to develop something similar quickly. D3 was absolutely core to this. It would be great to have D3 as an idiom! We so obviously took it off the shelf and used it thoroughly in what we have achieved. Can anyone focus on D3? What it does, how it delivers. It would even be good to know how it fits into the 2004 proposal / model (as it showed up subsequently and seems to first in pretty well). what does it enable? What does it make difficult? How did you implement and adapt the (architecture) model from 2004 as a result? The bullet list is great. Can we get a diagram that shows the 9 concepts in the bullets (where are these from, I can’t find them in the 2004 paper!!) and the levels achieved, desired? Quick evolution from nothing to approximately level 3.5 is a really good claim, very useful! Anything you can do to explain how the 2004 concepts enabled this would be great.

Great - an important recommendation and conclusion.

Can we be specific please - "others!" We need all names please, including all developers and all involved in discussions. BibTex format if possible! John, Nigel and Chen, Min and Abdul-Rahman, Alfie and Turkay, Cagatay and Vardy, Jamie Like that!

The generic support team realised the VIS infrastructure recommended many years ago. Saiful and Phong are the two main developers. Alfie and Ben led the team and developed plots and dashboards. Euan and Helen helped the UI design. Cagatay helped the connection with the analytical support team, which first started transforming algorithm designs and visual designs to the infrastructure back in July 2020 with Phong and Alfie played the function of mini-projects as voulunteers.

OK - so ... Chen, Min and John, Nigel, and Khan, Saiful and Nguyen, Phong and Abdul-Rahman, Alfie and Bach, Benjamin and Freeman, Euan and Purchase, Helen and Turkay, Cagatay ?

I'd be overjoyed if you could add these to the spreadsheet and complete section 7.4.

Very nice - good reflection, will form useful conclusions. The more you can be clear about the aspects of the 2004 paper that were used in the RAMP response, the better. See my comments, which may help clarify. Can we add a figure from the 2004 paper, or show how what was achieved in RAMP looks given the ideas from 2004? I also think we need a D3 idiom - D3 is a VIS concept/tech that is so fundamental to this. What did it enable given the 2004 vision?

The D3 idiom has been created. But there has been no update to content here since publication on Aug 24 and feedback on Aug 30. Min has made some comments, but they are not really moving the contribution in the direction that provides a description of a piece of BVIS knowledge, description of how it was applied, and reflection on what we have learned through the process. There is a suggestion that the work is insufficiently mature to do any meaningful reflection. That would surprise me, but if it is the case, then it’s hard to argue to retain this one, which would be a shame as I think it was useful and could provide a really good lesson for high level reflection. It would be great if you could have a look at the comments and make changes to try to shape this up please!

Isn't the knowledge construct "five-level deployment model for visual supercomputing"? VIS Infrastructure seems like the thing you created by applying the construct?

Add some things that worked, or seemed to work - **successes** - in a short section of 3-5 bullets. These may be positive reactions, new requirements, changing user stories (refinement), new connections. What good came of the application of the idiom to this domain?

Add some things that didn't work! What did we learn about the five-level deployment model for visual supercomputing?