Uploaded image for project: 'Request For Comments'
  1. Request For Comments
  2. RFC-894

Remove baselineSchema from schema browser

    XMLWordPrintable

Details

    Description

      The LSST Baseline Schema that is linked to from the Schema browser is not used in any database, does not get updated to reflect our current file or database data model, and will become more and more out of date in the future because of this. I propose that we remove this schema from the online browser, but keep the sdm_schemas/yml/baseline.yaml file around for our own internal reference (and note in it that it is purely for historical reference). Referring to this schema on the browser page as 'the “goal” of the Rubin Observatory construction project' is misleading, since we've already moved well past it and haven't updated it.

      A related question is what to do about LDM-153 and the DPDD: if we are not keeping our "baseline" schema up to date with our actual production data model, what purpose do those documents serve? Certainly, we should not be referring people to them to answer questions about what the data release/alert schemas will look like. The online schema browser is a big step forward in letting people know what we are actually producing.

      In some sense, removing the baseline schema from the online browser shouldn't need an RFC, because it won't actually impact any users, developers, CI process, or code. I'm filing this because "what do we do about the baseline schema?" came up while ebellm and I were working on revising the APDB schema, and the consensus seemed to be "we do nothing with it".

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          Activity

            lguy Leanne Guy added a comment -

            Following discussion with Parejkoj today,  for the core of this RFC, we have agreed to remove the baseline schema from the schema browser as it is not used  and does not reflect any extant data model. I'll leave it to the developers to decide whether to delete or archive for posterity the sdm_schemas/yml/baseline.yaml file itself. For what concerns the DPDD and LDM -153, if we do keep any sort of "aspirational schema" in the DPDD, I would at want to remove the manually written latex tables and have any tables in the DPDD auto generated from a yaml source. fritzm yes, it was LDM-153 and not the DPDD that has documentation rendered from Felis. 

            lguy Leanne Guy added a comment - Following discussion with Parejkoj  today,  for the core of this RFC, we have agreed to remove the baseline schema from the schema browser as it is not used  and does not reflect any extant data model. I'll leave it to the developers to decide whether to delete or archive for posterity the sdm_schemas/yml/baseline.yaml file itself. For what concerns the DPDD and LDM -153, if we do keep any sort of "aspirational schema" in the DPDD, I would at want to remove the manually written latex tables and have any tables in the DPDD auto generated from a yaml source.  fritzm  yes, it was LDM-153 and not the DPDD that has documentation rendered from Felis. 
            fritzm Fritz Mueller added a comment - - edited

            For reference, when this reaches an implementation ticket, all that is required to "de-publish" baseline from the browser is to delete the single "blurb" file: https://github.com/lsst/sdm_schemas/blob/main/browser/baseline.md, regardless of whether or not we choose to retain the associated yaml in the repo. Mention should also be removed from the repo's top level README.md.

            fritzm Fritz Mueller added a comment - - edited For reference, when this reaches an implementation ticket, all that is required to "de-publish" baseline from the browser is to delete the single "blurb" file: https://github.com/lsst/sdm_schemas/blob/main/browser/baseline.md , regardless of whether or not we choose to retain the associated yaml in the repo. Mention should also be removed from the repo's top level README.md.
            lguy Leanne Guy added a comment -

            I will address the related discussion on what to do about LDM-153 and the DPDD in a new RFC so that this RFC can move ahead at the CCB meeting on Wednesday

            lguy Leanne Guy added a comment - I will address the related discussion on what to do about LDM-153 and the DPDD in a new RFC so that this RFC can move ahead at the CCB meeting on Wednesday
            fritzm Fritz Mueller added a comment - - edited

            I'll throw one more comment in here just to say that I have historically found it more than somewhat useful to have an online browsable version of "roughly-what-is-intended-to-be-coming-but-isnt-yet-created-by-pipelines-today", for development planning purposes related to Qserv and its associated tooling. Also useful for sanity checking our sizing model. Having something browsable was a big win over e.g. having to dig through the DPDD for it. FWIW.

            fritzm Fritz Mueller added a comment - - edited I'll throw one more comment in here just to say that I have historically found it more than somewhat useful to have an online browsable version of "roughly-what-is-intended-to-be-coming-but-isnt-yet-created-by-pipelines-today", for development planning purposes related to Qserv and its associated tooling. Also useful for sanity checking our sizing model. Having something browsable was a big win over e.g. having to dig through the DPDD for it. FWIW.
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            Parejkoj are you ready to mark this RFC as implemented?

            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - Parejkoj are you ready to mark this RFC as implemented?

            People

              Parejkoj John Parejko
              Parejkoj John Parejko
              Colin Slater, Eli Rykoff, Eric Bellm, Fritz Mueller, Gregory Dubois-Felsmann, Jim Bosch, John Parejko, Kian-Tat Lim, Leanne Guy, Lynne Jones, Tim Jenness, Yusra AlSayyad
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              12 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:
                Planned End:

                Jenkins

                  No builds found.