Re: Need some data samples

[Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

There are several ways to look at reality.  One is as an idealist.  Someone 
ought to look at all the past ideas and summarize them and work on a best 
format.  Another is as a realist.  Some of us are taking data and pushing 
it through Michael's pipeline and getting answers.  These answers are being 
distributed to the group.  The group is interchanging ideas based on the 
formats presently in use.

The reality is that the longer a format is used, the more likely it is to 
become a standard.  This is just the real world talking and I am raising 
the flag as to what is happening.

>I have not run the pipeline nor looked at .cal files; my
>impression was that this was engineering data. Suggesting that
>this will be the "standard" for Mark IV data is a little
>premature, wouldn't you think?

I am warning that this is apt to happen unless some of the "standards" 
experts get together and do something different.  I think that those that 
will be interested in exchanging data should be running the pipeline 
looking at the .cal files and arguing for their version of exchange data.

So far I have found the .cal file just fine for my purpose.  I normally 
convert it to the .collected form for plotting and data use.   I can see 
three formats evolving.  The .cal format for the primary archive.  The 
.collected form for access use.  This file has n lines per star.  The .ws 
form as a summary.  This file has 1 line per star.

>Chris was assuming some formats for the Postgres database.
>Why doesn't someone review those emails and give a summary?
>Arne

Again, I am warning that we are rapidly coming to a practical standard.  If 
"someone" does not do some standards work, then the practical people 
working on the data will set it by default.  Don't count on a few workers 
to do everything.  In my case, I am quite busy just trying to get to the 
point where I analyze data as it is collected.  I am also worrying about 
taking the right data.

Tom Droege


>


At 12:20 PM 6/13/02 -0700, you wrote:
>I have not run the pipeline nor looked at .cal files; my
>this will be the "standard" for Mark IV data is a little
>prematureimpression was that this was engineering data.  Suggesting that
>, wouldn't you think?  There is my pipeline, which
>gives different information, and I am sure that Mike G.
>will have yet another version.  Our discussions over several
>years ended up, I thought, with certain parameters that
>would be required of all extracted starlists.  Likewise,
>Chris was assuming some formats for the Postgres database.
>Why doesn't someone review those emails and give a summary?
>Arne