Re: [alma-sw-ssr] Post-Berkeley draft of Offline Requirements

["K. Tatematsu" <k.tatematsu@nao.ac.jp>]

[Apologies if you've already seen this, I think it bounced - Brian]

Dear All,

At 11:09 01/06/26 -0600, Tim Cornwell wrote:
>"7.1-R4 The output of the display should be possible in many different 
>formats..."
>
>No, I think you choose one and let other software (e.g. ImageMagick) do any
>conversion. That's what we do in AIPS++: we write xpm and recommend that people
>use a converter of which there are plenty.

In Berkeley, we did not have enough time to discuss the Visualization section.
The above requirement is still in new 2-7.1-R4 without priority.

I am afraid that "many" means 30 or more.
How about just saying...

2-7.1-R4
The output of the display should be possible in at least one
popular image format, from which one can convert to
various image formats by using a commercial or free graphic converter
software.

I think this is a minimum requirement, and I like to give a
high priority(1).

If we keep the original sentence, I suggest a lower priority (3?).

How do you think?

By the way, I think that FITS
(if you mean the Flexible Image Transport System) is
the data output rather than the display output, right?

Cheers,
Ken Tatematsu


__/______________________________/__/
Ken'ichi Tatematsu   http://alma.mtk.nao.ac.jp/~kt/
National Astronomical Observatory of Japan  __/__/
Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan                 __/
           __/__/__/__/__/__/________________/__/