Revised ImageDM-ObsCore architecture

[Jesus Salgado]

Dear all,

It looks that we are in a dead end on this so I recall that the action
was, first, to the current ImageDM to produce a stable draft and, then,
to Mark to modify ImageDM to put it on line with ObsCore. It is fair to
raise concerns so Mark could take note of them and try to solve them at
UML level.

After Mark evaluation of the problem and producing a proposal and in
case there are unsolvable reasons (or mistakes in ObsCore) to make
progress in this line, we would propose a schedule change adding ObsCore
into the track but I would like to give some time after the draft
delivery to Mark to fulfill his action.

As said by many, the utypes expression should be taken outside the
problem for the time being.

Cheers,
Jesus


On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 08:00 -0500, Laurino, Omar wrote:
> So, if I can try to summarize the two approaches we are discussing, we
> have:
> 
> 1. Build on top of ObsCore and integrate the new data models (Spectral
> 2.0, major release change, and Image DM, new standard) with ObsCore to
> support the Data Cubes.
> 
> 2. Change Obscore, with changes that might break backward
> compatibility  and thus require a new major release. Then integrate
> new models  with it.
> 
> Both approaches have the same goal and, as far as we can tell, they
> would both achieve it.
> 
> The definition of backward compatibility I am using: a file compliant
> with the new version of the model is also compliant with the old
> version, so that software designed to support the old version does not
> choke on new files.
> 
> I would like to hear people's opinion on this.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Omar.
> 
> On Nov 13, 2013 12:13 AM, "Douglas Tody" <dtody at nrao.edu> wrote:
>         On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, CresitelloDittmar, Mark wrote:
>         
>                 Just a note on this point.. side bar though it is..
>                 
>                 On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Douglas Tody
>                 <dtody at nrao.edu> wrote:
>                 
>                         year and we urgently need to get on with
>                         development for real projects,
>                         with some expectation that the standards will
>                         not completely change out
>                         from under us while this is going on.  Some
>                         sort of interim
>                         update/solution is not an option at this
>                         point.
>                         
>                         
>                 My view on the document to be turned over Friday, is
>                 that this is the next
>                 DRAFT
>                 of the ImageDM which addresses the ObsCore link and
>                 other feedback from the
>                 previous draft.  I expect the utypes list will reflect
>                 the work you have
>                 been doing
>                 with Francois and Mireille.  This drop is to provide
>                 the basis to support
>                 the work
>                 you mentioned.
>         
>         I agree with all this - it is just an updated draft, and will
>         of course
>         continue to evolve.  However we need something stable,
>         hopefully close
>         to the final architecture, integrated with SIAV2, to support
>         Cube
>         project development for at least the next 4-6 months while the
>         standards
>         evolve.  The outside groups involved in implementation cannot
>         deal with
>         our continually evolving internal standards development
>         process.  An
>         occasional, e.g., yearly update is probably ok.
>         
>                         From that point, I will take lead on it's
>                         further evolution.. wherever that
>                 goes.
>                 I plan to make a list of topics to discuss, from my
>                 own review, and the
>                 comments
>                 by others (Jose, Arnold, Mireille).  I cannot
>                 guarantee that there will not
>                 be
>                 significant changes to the overall model after this
>                 drop.
>         
>         Of course there can be no such guarantee that things won't
>         change
>         significantly in response to an open discussion, I just ask
>         that we try
>         to minimize the impact on outside groups once we start to have
>         real
>         take-up outside the VO projects.  I would hope that NRAO and
>         ALMA (not
>         mentioned above) continue to have some input into further
>         evolution as
>         well; we are possibly the largest producer of cube data
>         directly
>         involved in this project, have a critical and immediate need
>         for these
>         standards, and will be doing a lot of relevant development
>         over the next
>         year.
>         
>                 - Doug
>         
-- 
Jesus J. SALGADO                       Jesus.Salgado at sciops.esa.int

European Space Agency (ESA)
European Space Astronomy Centre (ESAC)
Science Operations Department (SRE-O)
Science Archives and Computer Support Engineering Unit (SRE-OE)

European Space Agency/European Space Astronomy Centre (ESAC)
P.O. Box 78
28691 Villanueva de la Canada                 Tel: +34 91 813 12 71
Madrid - SPAIN                                Fax: +34 91 813 13 08
-------------------------------------------------------------------


This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.