head 1.1; access; symbols; locks http:1.1; strict; comment @# @; 1.1 date 2002.11.06.14.42.26; author MarcoLeoni; state Exp; branches; next ; desc @none @ 1.1 log @SWG Meeting Minutes, June 12, 2002 @ text @>From - Wed Nov 6 10:51:49 2002 Return-Path: Received: from st20.hq.eso.org (st20.hq.eso.org [134.171.10.171]) by web3.hq.eso.org (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g84DiPw3017074 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:44:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from fkerber@@localhost) by st20.hq.eso.org (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA11160 for mdolensk; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:44:25 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:44:25 +0200 (MET DST) From: Florian Kerber Message-Id: <200209041344.PAA11160@@st20.hq.eso.org> To: mdolensk@@eso.org Subject: mynotes1206 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: d7422400ffcaafd1737ab2042b62103b welocme address (PB) agenda: 1.) comments on conference 2.) GOODS, ELAIS, Orion as test cases 3.) Review of action items Astrometry Photometry 4.) Definition/Selection of 1st science demo ad 1.) comments on conference - convergence of goals, slow in some areas but progress evident - definition of standards, VOTable, astronomy is doing well in that respect good example FITS - Data quality, important issue, sometimes hidden or forgotten - 10/90 model good concept and nice buzz word - tools with similar functions exist Aladin/Vizier long experience, evolving Querator based on specific requirement Sky query merge functionality of different tools, requirements to be validated by SWG How many/few, how uniform/diverse should the tools be ? NASA sci definition team did not decide on this: let all I/F be equal i.e. provide the same services, people will use the tools that serves them best. Experience from Aladin/Vizier Egret: even simple prototype encounters problems of data quality required in any case: tool for recalibration by end user 2.) GOODS genuine multi-wavelength project with well defined aim, survey but diverse instruments, coherent data set Bob Fosbury: GOODS Team has obligation to deliver highly processed data products anyway >> VO contribution at high level not certain that GOODs is best suited for AVO, VO's basic task is to look into data description, quality, e.g. HST parallel data much less structured but rich in content offering a wider approach might be good for VO but multi wavelength, multi-instrument is a requirement for AVO What is the purpose of the demo ? PR aspect to secure funding for future ? Just get the requirements from the chosen project, like GOODS team ? PB: aim is to use data in a better way, if GOODS is example then one should merge teams in beginning (exchange know how/clarify requirements and procedures) and separate when we start to work towards different objectives issue of something new ? do we do new science or do we make it easier to do science ? AVO can also inherit know how from GOODS Demo needs to be simple task for January, this also needs interaction with dedicated teams and with community. HDF is a good example of full and immediate us by the public. How to measure success of AVO/GOODS interaction ? GOODS can serve as a test case about data quality, data models, procedures tools but GOODS sci team would not like to see AVO or SWG dictate standards and procedures for the GOODS project. Urgent aim for GOODS is to extract colour information in order to select targets for spectroscopy. Further requirement: astrometric reference frame for ACS data, strong geometric distortions are present and even for WFPC II WCS is not sufficient questions of resources how many AVO staff ?? ST-ECF/ESO: 3 FTE planned, 2 selected, call for VO Scientist not successful numbers include work on other work areas interoperability/technology EIS experience with "outside" people S/W testing Gilmore: GOODS, and or ? - GOODS is forward looking, ELAIS is basically done - GOODS will have good PR, positive link for AVO - international - data of highest quality, combination of ground and space based, incl X-ray Bob F: e.g. astrometric reference frame, tool to associate/visualize frame 300 - 400 Spectra of field galaxies available GOODS proposal to From - Wed Nov 6 10:53:05 2002 Return-Path: Received: from st20.hq.eso.org (st20.hq.eso.org [134.171.10.171]) by web3.hq.eso.org (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g84DiPw3017074 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:44:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from fkerber@@localhost) by st20.hq.eso.org (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA11160 for mdolensk; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:44:25 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:44:25 +0200 (MET DST) From: Florian Kerber Message-Id: <200209041344.PAA11160@@st20.hq.eso.org> To: mdolensk@@eso.org Subject: mynotes1206 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: d7422400ffcaafd1737ab2042b62103b welocme address (PB) agenda: 1.) comments on conference 2.) GOODS, ELAIS, Orion as test cases 3.) Review of action items Astrometry Photometry 4.) Definition/Selection of 1st science demo ad 1.) comments on conference - convergence of goals, slow in some areas but progress evident - definition of standards, VOTable, astronomy is doing well in that respect good example FITS - Data quality, important issue, sometimes hidden or forgotten - 10/90 model good concept and nice buzz word - tools with similar functions exist Aladin/Vizier long experience, evolving Querator based on specific requirement Sky query merge functionality of different tools, requirements to be validated by SWG How many/few, how uniform/diverse should the tools be ? NASA sci definition team did not decide on this: let all I/F be equal i.e. provide the same services, people will use the tools that serves them best. Experience from Aladin/Vizier Egret: even simple prototype encounters problems of data quality required in any case: tool for recalibration by end user 2.) GOODS genuine multi-wavelength project with well defined aim, survey but diverse instruments, coherent data set Bob Fosbury: GOODS Team has obligation to deliver highly processed data products anyway >> VO contribution at high level not certain that GOODs is best suited for AVO, VO's basic task is to look into data description, quality, e.g. HST parallel data much less structured but rich in content offering a wider approach might be good for VO but multi wavelength, multi-instrument is a requirement for AVO What is the purpose of the demo ? PR aspect to secure funding for future ? Just get the requirements from the chosen project, like GOODS team ? PB: aim is to use data in a better way, if GOODS is example then one should merge teams in beginning (exchange know how/clarify requirements and procedures) and separate when we start to work towards different objectives issue of something new ? do we do new science or do we make it easier to do science ? AVO can also inherit know how from GOODS Demo needs to be simple task for January, this also needs interaction with dedicated teams and with community. HDF is a good example of full and immediate us by the public. How to measure success of AVO/GOODS interaction ? GOODS can serve as a test case about data quality, data models, procedures tools but GOODS sci team would not like to see AVO or SWG dictate standards and procedures for the GOODS project. Urgent aim for GOODS is to extract colour information in order to select targets for spectroscopy. Further requirement: astrometric reference frame for ACS data, strong geometric distortions are present and even for WFPC II WCS is not sufficient questions of resources how many AVO staff ?? ST-ECF/ESO: 3 FTE planned, 2 selected, call for VO Scientist not successful numbers include work on other work areas interoperability/technology EIS experience with "outside" people S/W testing Gilmore: GOODS, and or ? - GOODS is forward looking, ELAIS is basically done - GOODS will have good PR, positive link for AVO - international - data of highest quality, combination of ground and space based, incl X-ray Bob F: e.g. astrometric reference frame, tool to associate/visualize frame 300 - 400 Spectra of field galaxies available GOODS proposal to obtain 500 to 600 spectra more and later 5000 to 6000 with high multiplexing instruments ACS data will be observed in July/Aug and mostly Oct/Nov Nick: GOODS is future but more longterm; for shorter term ELAIS offers multi wavelength project Gilmore: don't spread out resources on an Phase A study AVO should enable everyone compete with GOODS Team (on their data) again idea to merge GOODS and AVO teams for a specific purpose and limited period of time. Bob F: AVO needs to deal with data quality issues FK: AVO should set standards of data quality, if GOODS is a good example in that respect it will be good start for AVO Mary K: Can't we do both GOODS and ELAIS ? PB matter of resources ACS astrometric reference frame, HST header info is not up to task technical implementation of astrometry ? not business of SWG. What is the purpose of the demo ? Where does it take place, Why January ? Sci Goal ? Show capability to work on multi wavelength data cube and remove all instrumental signatures astrometry is 1st step Cris Gorski: recalls last meeting approach: use expertise/data from all AVO partner institutions, common sky area, multi wavelength/instruments study a piece of sky in a GOODS-like manner but not participation in GOODS plan AVO-NVO demo at the AAS Jan meeting 2003 Benoit P: new AVO staff needs marching/working orders suggestions for sub-group, which collects individual proposals by email photometric vs astrometric, astrometry may not be attractive enough Nich volunteers for sub-group Benoit suggests Astrovirtel-like project for demo, ie limited in scope but (re)usable for other projects/community Nick suggests to query GOODS ELAIS etc and come back within recommendation within 2 weeks Ortiz: DQ description tool, user shall tell us about the quality, close the loop by feedback Aladin as prototype for astrometry ? Not really relies on cross-identifiable objects, very hard over large wavelength range. NVO demos: - opt cluster mergers compare with radio and X-ray, visualization and tools for quanitative measurements - Brown dwarfs SLOAN, 2MASS combination - GRB Alert Subgroup: members (I did not get all the names !!: Nick, Luiz, Ortiz, Mary ...) 1st meeting during the conference !? Egret: new proposal: Magellanic Clouds, multi wavelength colour-colour diagrams 3.) Action items from last time - Astrometry P. Leahy, W. Voges detailed account follow IAU FITS WCS recommendations urge their working group to finalize their proposal separate steps are well-known and tools exist, but an integrated package doing the whole job in one go would be great step forward - Photometry M. Kontizas, A. Micol detailed account turn into a document for circulation &&& you should have the copies of their transparancies, which will be more complete than my notes && subgroup to proposals 1st sci demo within one week, input from SWG members PB please send comments ideas 4.) see 2.) discussion of projects, no decision yet @