Phone meeting on 06-apr-2000
----------------------------

1 - I gave a short account of the comments received after the
 presentation of the SSR activities at the Software Group meeting in
 Garching on Apr 43/04:
  
. On real time software: 
 - We need to give a nomenclature on the different types of sub-arrays: 
   sub-arrays and sub-sub-arrays ?
 - Observations blocks need to be better defined. They differ from the VLT ones
 (atomic, can be calibrated without other data, no control flow inside)
 - Can interactive use (at low level) be done by remote, non-staff observers ?

. On scripting languages 
 - access should be limited, because it is hard to debug, hard to maintain
 - templates are recommended (i.e. scripts with parametrized access)

. On proposal submission and handling:
 - phase 1 and 2 should be more clearly separated.
 - phase 1 simulation tool should include all telescope overhead
 - thorough checks at Phase 2. Need check for shadowing.
   [ note later in the phone meeting we came back to this; the check can 
   be only statistical at proposal time, but at the actual scheduling time 
   on may compute it and may be take some actions ]

. On dynamic scheduling:
 - we need to recalculate the schedule if an observation fails

. On operator interface:
 - Does ALMA need a resident astronomer to make operational decisions ?

. Data pipeline
 - Need clarification of uses of the pipeline data, particularly the 
   quick look data

. General:
 - The current report is still too abstract to be useful in designing ALMA 
   software.

                                     ----

2- Report formal review

The current report will be formally reviewed by a panel of scientists
  designated by and including both project scientists (Al Wootten and
  Stephane Guilloteau), plus Brian and Gianni; the review will
  preferably be before the Paris meeting so that we can discuss and
  react on the comments (and revise the report)

                                     ----

3- Paris meeting

The plans are to discuss the comments, and prepare the work ahead: 
  go to more detailed lists of requirements and use cases (which are a 
  formal way of presenting the requirements to the software designers).

  - It is proposed that for each report chapter the author draft a
  list of requirements, and post it to the email list a few days
  before the meeting, so that we have a basis for discussion.

  - We will get a digest of "Use cases for astronomers" by someone from ESO

  - Please contact Francois Viallefond for any practical organization matter
  (there will be an overhead projector and a laptop projector)

                                     ----

4- I expect to spend about a week in May at ESO working on detailed 
  requirements and use cases with experienced people and software designers.


Robert