ALMA SSR Committee

Phone Meeting 2001-08-22

Connection Details

Minutes


  1. Comments on Off-line analysis requirements draft.
    We discussed the comments on Steve's `Post Berkeley' pdf file (http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~smyers/alma/offline-req/myers-report-3.1.pdf).
    1. Commercial licences (1.2-R6 page 8): if commercial licences are needed then the regional centers should allow observers to use their facilities at no cost for the users that cannot afford the `nominal cost'; or ALMA could buy licenses for the users, saving development cost.
    2. Steve will integrate the comments (already send or to be sent in the next few days) into a draft available end of next week, that will be distributed to the ASAC (as a draft) before their meeting (The meeting is Sep 11-12, but as most ASAC members will be already at San Pedro on Sep 7th, the deadline for putting material on the web is September 1st).
  2. Comments on Pipeline requirements. We discussed the draft by Peter and Frederic (to be included in SW memo 0011), at: http://iram.fr/~gueth/pipeline_3.1.pdf.
    1. Priorities will have to be included, starting from those already in Memo 11. Remember that the requirements mentioned in memo 11 (Section 3.6) must be taken into account.
    2. The data rate of the future correlator will require some study, quite possibly by this committee. A factor of 5 increase has been mentioned, but there is no definitive specification yet.
    3. Same deadline: September 1st for distibution of draft to ASAC as for the off-line document.
  3. Other Issues
    1. For info: the High Level Analysis document is at http://www.alma.nrao.edu/development/computing/docs/joint/draft/InitialAnalysisv3.pdf and is now open for review inside the software group.
    2. Archive requirements will be revised and detailed by Ken Tatematsu and Kouichiro Nakanishi (Nobeyama) as decided in Berkeley. They plan to submit us a draft about two weeks from now.
    3. B. Clark mentions that a tool to reduce pointing sessions and derive a pointing model is needed. This is mentioned in the pipeline draft at (3-2.0-R4), but an interactive tool is also needed. This should be mentioned (and detailed?) in the off-line document as well.
    4. We have to think about a method for scoring packages (like aips++) in the scope of our off-line requirements, when they are in final form, as this will be the next step. For this we have to define performance criteria which are meaningful for ALMA.
    5. Brian mentions that we have to keep in mind discussing the role that we want to play in the construction phase of ALMA.
    6. Next phone meeting: I propose October 10th, 15:00 UT

    $Id: 2001-08-22.html,v 1.5 2001/08/23 16:19:46 lucas Exp lucas $