The IVOA ObsCore data model for observation metadata contains facility_name and instrument_name attributes. These are mandatory attributes - a conforming observation metadata service such as ObsTAP or SIAv2 must return them.
We wish to decide now on the values to be used for the main camera, commissioning camera, and spectrograph.
The principal question here which is not just a matter of taste is whether the spectrograph will be represented as part of the same facility as the main camera and commissioning camera.
We propose that they be separate facilities. The motivation is that, in the related CAOM2 data model, this allows the two facilities/telescopes' different physical location in Earth surface coordinates to be represented.
To forestall a possible concern: ObsTAP and SIAv2 services both have means for querying for all Rubin data, regardless of the split facility_name:
- ObsTAP ADQL: facility_name LIKE 'Rubin%'
- SIAv2 URL parameters: &FACILITY=Rubin-SST&FACILITY=Rubin-AuxTel (multiple instances of the same query parameter are ORed before they are ANDed with other query parameters)
The proposal, therefore, is to support the following three pairs of (facility_name, instrument_name):
The impact of this RFC is that it will serve as support for implementation of the ObsCore data services to be deployed this year. It is also germane to the work on DM-29600, which relates to how our instrumentation is referred to in other IVOA services (specifically the SVO Filter Profile Service).
Implementation of the RFC could be as a one-page LDM or LSE document defining the names for the record.
This RFC doesn't attempt to define instrument names for ancillary instrumentation such as the all-sky camera, but they will be needed in the future and could be added to the above document.
In addition, we will need to decide, by DP0.2, on the values to be used for simulated LSSTCam data from DC2 and from any future formal service of simulated data from our project.