
	Weekly SDAST Chat meeting #60: Thursday 2nd May 2002
	
Participants: Peter Kretschmar, Silvia Martinez-Nunez, Stefan Larsson,
	Sami Maisala, Carol Anne Oxborrow, Niels Joergen Westergaard
	
Subjects discussed: 14.00 new Chat meeting time
	SDAST meeting at ISDC with SVT-F
	Monthly report, April 2002
	Science validation
	Interactive background handling design
	Orbital phase tool
	V1/V2 deliveries: May 7th deadline
	
Action Items:

AI020502_1 SL	May 13	Spend a day performing analysis of SV results made by
OPEN		Peter, and make a report of the results for the SVR

AI020502_2 SL, NJW, PK End May. Provide full and detailed critique of Sami's
OPEN		Architectural Design for interactive background handling

	
**** Logging Started : Thu May 02 13:56:56 MEST 2002
<smaisala> Hi All! END
<larsson> Hi. END
> I'll go and rustle up NJW and Silvia. ENd
*** peter (~pkretsch@crab.unige.ch) has joined channel #jemxadr
<peter> Hi everyone, quite a group already! 
*** silvia (~silvia@oso.dsri.dk) has joined channel #jemxadr
<silvia> Hej all !
*** njw (~njw@uhuru.dsri.dk) has joined channel #jemxadr
> Looks like this could be full and punctual attendance: would people like to
> change the regular chat time to 14.00 ? END
<njw> OK with me END
<smaisala> OK. END
<peter> Well, it would overlap with our S/W meeting, but then I rarely attend 
that one ... END
<peter> So if it helps, we could have the chats at 14:00. END
> But your head of Science SW or something Peter!END
<silvia> Good time for me END 
> Okay 14.00 it is from now on. END
> Okay first item on the agenda: next SDAST meeting. We're all agreed it should
> be in ISDC to coincide with the SVT-F or whatever, if that's possible. The
> question is how long can/should we wait to find out the test dates? END
<njw> Are there any problems deciding May 15 ? END
<peter> I have no real opinion - being here already :-) END
<larsson> It seems I will also be there 4-5 june......END
> What is the expected date for the test Peter, as it stands now? END
<peter> I haven't heard anything new. There are two dates floating around: 
June 8 (Saturday), or June 5. END
> Okay, let's take NJW's suggestion and wait till May 15th to set a date for
> that meeting - we'll also have to decide on the meeting after that so that
> we can get back-to-back tickets. I'm sure Stefan will find hiw June 4-5 trip
> useful, even if we don't have the meeting right then - I believe you've got
> some spectral extraction to discuss! END
<larsson> Maybe I have to get a back-to-back-toback- ticket..END
> Any more comments on point1 of agenda? END
<larsson> No. END
<njw> N
<smaisala> No. END
> So next: any more to add to the monthly report? Sami already sent me his
> delivery of j_bkg_**** to add: what about NJW and SL: new deliveries in
> April? Documents finished? Simulations run? Verification performed? All news
> is welcome? END
<njw> j_ima_src_find-1.3.2 delivered april 9 
<njw> else the SV stuff is covered in your draft. END
> Anything from you Stefan? END
<larsson> I am waiting untill May....END
> What's improved in j_ima_src_find NJW? Got some SPR numbers I can quote? END
<njw> SCREW 497 END
> Any more comments for the monthly report? END
<larsson> N.
<njw> N
> Next on the agenda Science Validation/Verification. How's it going you
> astronomer types? END
<peter> Seems no one feels addressed by this :-) END
<njw> No critical areas found (according to Thierry C.) END
<peter> I think we are quite in good shape for the imaging, but could use a 
bit of quantified data for spectral extraction:
<peter> - Up to what source strength do we get useful spectra? 
<peter> - What are the uncertainties in spectral parameters, typically, for 
our test cases?
<peter> Stefan: do you think, you will get a few more numbers for our reports 
within the next few weeks? END
<larsson> You are right Peter. I shave not presented a systematic result.
> I think someone needs to take it upon themselves to write a detailed report
<larsson> Qualitativly it looks OK. Spectral shapes and
<larsson> error estinmates looks good.
> of the results somewhat like the analysis that NJW did for his various
> simulations. Our test cases listed certain questions and criteria for 
success,
> and some trends that we should look for: has anyone actually done this both
> qualitatively and quantitatively? NJW needs these sorts of analyses for the
> SVR, so someone's got to do it. END
<larsson> I think I can get something useful if I spend a day on it.
<larsson> Not before 7th May though... END
> Okay Stefan that's an AI on you to spend a day analysing the SV data: when
> should the due date be? END
<larsson> Is 13 May OK?
> I'll put that: when can you have a report written on the results? END
<njw> I think it is OK END
<larsson> Intension to have it done by then. END
<peter> We really need it. END
<larsson> I'll do it. END
> One AI on Stefan due 13th May. Any more comments on SV results/report? END
<larsson> If anyone have suggestions on points to adress please send
<larsson> me an email. END
> Basically, I'd like to see all the points addressed about various trends
> going from one set of related sources to the next that were listed in the
> original test case list description and are repeated in GSRR and SVR. END
<peter> Next item? END
> Interactive background design: Sami circulated a document (now under 
Discussion
> Documents on the Forum), that was just the component description chapter of
> the ADD related to J_bkg_interactive. Have all the astro-men taken a look at
> this, and does everyone think this is a sufficiently detailed document to 
form
> the basis of the tool ? END
<njw> You have j-bkg-spat-select in the headline but j-bkg-spat-sel in the text
<smaisala> Ok. I'll fix that! Any other comments? END
> Basically, is this what you boys had in mind when Sami was given an AI to
> produce a design document? END
<njw> I don't quite understand why the 'results are multiplied with each other'
<peter> I'd say yes - but I must admit not having read it carefully yet. END
<njw> (end of paragraph: Instrumental background)
<njw> END
<peter> But the AI is surely closed, we are talking about editing it now. END
<njw> Why do you need to put each model in a separate FITS file? END
> Yes the AI is closed. Could I put another AI on PK, SL and NJW to read the
<njw> Y
<larsson> Y
> document through very carefully to smooth out any problems BEFORE the next
> meeting - we don't want to have yet another fruitless ding-dong over this 
matter
> so late in the day. END
<peter> It was not at all fruitless! END
<peter> Only, we should not just at these meetings discuss the details END
> I think you three should thrash this out offline with Sami - right down to
> the details, not just let it drift for another month. END
<smaisala> YES! Read the document and send me your detailed comments as soon as 
possible. END
<peter> I agree with the idea. END
> So that's an AI on all asto-blokes (PK, NJW, SL) to read and critique Sami's
> architectural design right down to every input parameter (AND how they're to
> be used) and especially, suggestions for pseudo-code and algorithms.END
> Dead line is end of May, so that it's sure to be done by next meeting. END
<peter> One set of good news here: Bruce is now actively trying to write the 
DAl3AUX function to calculate orbital phase.
<peter> While this won't be in for the May delivery, if there is an improvement
 you want to make, Sami, later we could finally have the tool. END
> That's great. END
> any more comments on background handling design? END
> Next on the agenda: May 7th for outstanding SPRs and SCREWs - how's it going
> for everyone for that deadline? END
<njw> I think I can do the required changes in time for my executables END
<larsson> Same here. END
> yes, I seem to be doing okay, so I'm fairly confident to get done in time.END
> Just one problem Peter: I'm using David L's new component validation tool,
> which in many ways is very nice, but it's got some very strange habits too.
> Who should I send bug reports/problems to? END
<peter> To David and maybe cc to Mathias. END
> Okay, will do. END
<peter> Sami: how about your changes? I have also just added one, which would 
be very good to have by May 7 but which means a bit of recoding. END
> Any more comments on SPRs/SCREWS-to-do? END
<larsson> N.
<njw> No, but I have another meeting coming up now, so I've got to leave you - 
bye END
*** njw has left channel #jemxadr : (njw)
> Could we skip the AI list now: got to run to another meeting about diminished
> energy resolution at low temperatures: won't this instrument ever grow up and
> start behaving itself? END
<larsson> Seems we are done for today. END
<larsson> Bye. END
*** Signoff: larsson ()
> Have a good week till we chat next. Bye! END
<smaisala> bye
