We shortly discussed the implications on our work of
the delay in Japanese participation, recently announced,
that is expected to imply a (hopefully temporary) return to a
baseline two-way project.
It is clear that work on the ALMA extensions like
investigation of the data rate requirements for the future
correlator, and the specific ACA requirements have now much
less priority and should be put to a hold status. It is agreed that:
The work on data rates can be refocussed on
updating the data rates for the baseline correlator,
based on the evolution of science in the few years
since these numbers were first derived, and on the
evolution of technology expected in the few years
before actual science operations.
It might be wise to consider the implications of
ACA just to make sure that we do not design it out,
thus adding to the cost of a later inclusion in the
project. Also, even without ACA, we might consider
whether the single dish measurements would be
performed in a similar way as they were foreseen with
ACA (dedicated antennas), as this might have similar
implications on the requirements.
The Japanese SSR members clearly expressed their wish
to continue to participate in the work of our committee.
Status of off-line analysis document (Steve Myers).
Steve could not attend but will include the few
comments R. Lucas gathered at ASAC meeting; he believes
the document could be open for review at the end of next
week.
Current pipeline requirements draft (Frederic Gueth,
Peter Shilke).
Neither could attend but Frederic is working on a new
version that should be available for a final round of comments
also next week.
Archiving Requirements/Use Cases (Ken Tatematsu,
K. Nakanishi).
Ken presented the new version sent out the day before.
Comments on the new Use Cases:
J. Schwarz pointed out the Use Cases should add
functional information to the requirements. This is not
the case of the Backup Use Case which should be left
out.
Cross Correlate Use Case: the descriptive
introductory part is not enough to explain what is
meant. The Archive Use Cases should only explain
operations really relevant to the archive, like store
and retrieve. The cross correlation of two cubes is
actually an off-line analysis operation (even if it
follows e.g. two retrieve operations). One could
consider also cross-correlating the entire ALMA
archive, or part of it, with another large archive: but
this is a functionality which is more likely to be
provided by a general tool of the Virtual Observatory.
There was also a discussion about the inclusion of scripts
in the archive. The point is that the archive should
contain complete information on whatever-it-is that
fulfills the functionality that we have attributed to
scripts in memo 11 (see below).
More comments should be sent (by email) on this draft.
Points where clarifications/additions are needed on
Science requirements, after High Level Analysis Review
(R. Lucas).
I sent out an email message just before the
meeting with issues raised at the High Level Analysis
review, with possible implications on the requirements.
The pipeline issue (whether `final' images should be
produced at the end of sessions, even if a breakpoint of a
final point is not reached) was discussed. The amount of
resources needed to produce a final image can be evaluated
at the proposal preparation phase and the decision whether
to make the final image at the end of the session or not
can be made using this information (if such a feature is
wanted by the PI).
We also discussed the issue of whether scripts should
be mentioned at all in the requirements or not, as this was
clearly felt by two reviewers as referring to a particular
implementation (possibly due to become outdated in the next
few years) while what was actually meant was a set of
functionalities (possibly what is needed now is a precise
description of the functionalities themselves).
E-mail comments on that list of issues are clearly
needed. I will draft requirement changes (starting by the
simpler ones ...).
