Observing Tool: Concept and Prototype: Steve Scott
see
http://www.alma.aoc.nrao.edu/development/computing/docs/memos/computdrafts.html The Observing Tool is the primary interface to users. The
document recently put on the Web describes the concept an a
prototype to be built. The scope is restricted to the novice user
and observing programmes making use of a single observing mode
(multi-field interferometry). Emphasis is made on the GUI components
needed fo scientific user input while more administrative input and
processing is deliberately ignored.
Some differences with the SSR requirements exist (like the use of a
centralized program repository enabling e.g. collaborative input by
proposers).
A first public comment period is open with a deadline set to
Feb. 1, in order to have a formal review before end of March.
Rewievers (apart from Brian, Gianni, Joe, Robert):
F. Viallefond, Boyd Waters, P. Schilke(?). Naturally every one is
welcomed to volunteer comments to Steve.
New version of Memo 11: Robert Lucas
R. Lucas started to put together a new version of memo 11 as
advertised in the previous phone meeting. This includes the new
pipeline and archiving sections.
Joe Schwarz mentions that some of the Use Cases (in Data
Processing) have been modified when writing the High Level Analysis
document. It appears worthwhile to reflect these changes into the
SSR document (provided that internal consistency with the
requirements is kept). Jow will sent those use cases to Robert in
html format.
After this step one or two SSR members will have to go through
the document and check it mainly for internal consistency. That the
document will be ready for an incremental review (limited in scope to the
modified parts).
Follow up of off-line requirements documents As the document gets reviewed it is worthwhile to think about
follow-up work.
Formal package evaluation:
SSR help has been mentioned on this issue. Brian expects that
for each package one SSR member will go through all requirements
together with one representative of the package providers. Each
problem encountered will be described in a report that will be
provided to project management for final evaluation.
Test data sets:
The off-line analysis document mentions that package
performance shall be benchmarked some data will have to be provided
with the right size for ALMA data sets. This can be actual data
scaled up to ALMA size or simulated data (as for instance built using
the simulator developped by F. Viallefond and the Paris group).
Location and date of next face-to-face meeting We decide to follow Brian's proposition and attempt to organize
the face-to-face meeting during the Alma Week in Granada, Spain
(April 22-27). Careful synchronization with other meetings
(software and other) will be required and it is well possible that
we may have to overlap with the previous or next week. More
information will be provided by Jaap Baars two weeks from now.
Actualisation of data rates (S. Scott, S. Myers,
M. Momose)
As no further comment was made the document is reputed to be
accepted by the SSR, will be posted on the Web and referred to in
the requirements.
Proposed date of next phone meeting
February 21st 15:00 UT A US toll-free number will be provided.
Action List
Pre-review of OT document (Feb 1 deadline, comments to Steve Scott)
New version of memo 11: R.L. to include a few modified Use Cases from HLA (to be provided by Joe Schwarz).
Actualisation of data rates will be posted on the Web (Brian)
$Id: 2001-01-17.html,v 1.1 2002/01/17 17:23:11 lucas Exp lucas $
