Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-11028

No DM requirements on Auxiliary Telescope data processing

    Details

    • Team:
      Architecture

      Description

      I can find nothing in LSE-61 (latest draft thereof) which relates to Auxiliary Telescope data acquisition, processing, etc. This must be an oversight.

      (The words "auxiliary" and "atmosphereic" do not appear in the document at all. The word "atmosphere" does, but in the unrelated context of DMS-REQ-0043.)

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            I think it makes sense to add some words to DMS-REQ-0130 listing the products from the aux telescope. Maybe also add an explicit requirement to say that the data from the aux telescope are archived in the same way as camera data and another requirement saying that the data are reduced. I would also like to know what the performance requirements are for the aux telescope pipeline, similar to DMS-REQ-0131.

            OSS-REQ-0315 is a bit vague in the sense it says we should take the data because we need it but doesn't bother to say we should reduce it.

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - I think it makes sense to add some words to DMS-REQ-0130 listing the products from the aux telescope. Maybe also add an explicit requirement to say that the data from the aux telescope are archived in the same way as camera data and another requirement saying that the data are reduced. I would also like to know what the performance requirements are for the aux telescope pipeline, similar to DMS-REQ-0131. OSS-REQ-0315 is a bit vague in the sense it says we should take the data because we need it but doesn't bother to say we should reduce it.
            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            Expanding on this general theme, but not specifically the AuxTel:

            LSE-61 currently calls out some subset of calibration products and labels them as requirements. In fact, the Calibration Products Production will generate a lot more products than are currently listed. We can claim that almost anything is covered by DMS-REQ-0130 ("The DMS shall produce and archive Calibration Data Products that capture the signature of the telescope, camera and detector"), but for consistency we should either add all of the other CPP products to the DMSR, or remove the subset of products that are currently called out specifically.

            At some level, the right way to approach this may be to think of (an updated) LSE-180 as having the same relationship to the DMSR in terms of calibration products as LSE-163 has to the DMSR in terms of science products.

            (There's actually some sort of philosophical question here about what it's appropriate to have as a requirement: presumably the real requirements is just that all calibration products required to calibrate the AP and DRP products to at a level which meets the science requirements must be archived. Calling out a bunch of specific calibration products as requirements seems — to first order — unnecessary, except to the extent that they might be required in L3.)

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - Expanding on this general theme, but not specifically the AuxTel: LSE-61 currently calls out some subset of calibration products and labels them as requirements. In fact, the Calibration Products Production will generate a lot more products than are currently listed. We can claim that almost anything is covered by DMS-REQ-0130 ("The DMS shall produce and archive Calibration Data Products that capture the signature of the telescope, camera and detector"), but for consistency we should either add all of the other CPP products to the DMSR, or remove the subset of products that are currently called out specifically. At some level, the right way to approach this may be to think of (an updated) LSE-180 as having the same relationship to the DMSR in terms of calibration products as LSE-163 has to the DMSR in terms of science products. (There's actually some sort of philosophical question here about what it's appropriate to have as a requirement: presumably the real requirements is just that all calibration products required to calibrate the AP and DRP products to at a level which meets the science requirements must be archived. Calling out a bunch of specific calibration products as requirements seems — to first order — unnecessary, except to the extent that they might be required in L3.)
            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            Bringing this to the attention of Leanne Guy and Jeffrey Carlin in case they have also noticed the aux tel data processing absence in LSE-61 as part of the verification work.

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - Bringing this to the attention of Leanne Guy and Jeffrey Carlin in case they have also noticed the aux tel data processing absence in LSE-61 as part of the verification work.
            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            Do we want an explicit requirement or do we want an implicit requirement in that it's impossible to calibrate a data release without the AuxTel data so clearly we must be able to process the data. The advantage of a requirement is that it gives us an early win in verification. The disadvantage is the paperwork. Isn't there already a milestone related to this?

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - Do we want an explicit requirement or do we want an implicit requirement in that it's impossible to calibrate a data release without the AuxTel data so clearly we must be able to process the data. The advantage of a requirement is that it gives us an early win in verification. The disadvantage is the paperwork. Isn't there already a milestone related to this?

              People

              • Assignee:
                tjenness Tim Jenness
                Reporter:
                swinbank John Swinbank
                Watchers:
                Gregory Dubois-Felsmann, John Swinbank, Kian-Tat Lim, Leanne Guy, Patrick Ingraham, Tim Jenness, Wil O'Mullane
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                7 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:

                  Summary Panel