Obsc ore 1.1 WD

Arnold Rots arots at cfa.harvard.edu
Tue Oct 13 17:14:31 CEST 2015


Laurent,

I think this distinction is a red herring: instrumentally measured
parameters are
always proxies for world coordinates and this is no different for photon
counting
instruments.

Cheers,

  - Arnold

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold H. Rots                                          Chandra X-ray
Science Center
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory                   tel:  +1 617 496
7701
60 Garden Street, MS 67                                      fax:  +1 617
495 7356
Cambridge, MA 02138
arots at cfa.harvard.edu
USA
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Laurent Michel <
laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> From the discussion it seems that event list properties are often related
> to a instrumental features.
>
> The initial goal of Obscore was multi-wavelength discovery. It is focused
> on describing footprint of a data product on the space/time/energy/...
> axes.
> The current Obscore description allows to discover Event lists matching a
> given coverage along these axes.
> The incoming draft will explicit a special use case for that with event
> lists.
>
> The detailed features such as the #event/SNR/... of events lists should be
> modelled in more details in another specification (e.g. NDCube).
>
> We would like to reach an agreement in Sydney about the scope delimitation
> of the different models.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Laurent & Mireille
>
> Le 09/10/2015 21:59, Arnold Rots a écrit :
>
>> Mark,
>>
>> I agree with your second point - event_dim would be the wrong choice.
>> I suggested a while ago that if we were to have something like pixel_dim,
>> which provides the total number of pixels (the product of all _dims in the
>> case of a filled cube), that would be the proper place to put the number
>> of events: it is the number of pixels provided.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>    - Arnold
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Arnold H. Rots                                          Chandra X-ray
>> Science Center
>> Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory                   tel:  +1 617 496
>> 7701
>> 60 Garden Street, MS 67                                      fax:  +1
>> 617 495 7356
>> Cambridge, MA 02138 arots at cfa.harvard.edu <mailto:arots at cfa.harvard.edu>
>> USA http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:49 PM, CresitelloDittmar, Mark <
>> mdittmar at cfa.harvard.edu <mailto:mdittmar at cfa.harvard.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>     All,
>>
>>     I do hope we get to spend some quality time on this topic soon (in
>> Sydney?).
>>     I find myself agreeing with different parts of different people's
>> statements!
>>
>>     + I see Arnold's point about the event list being pixelated.
>>         I've been thinking along the same lines in the past couple days,
>> so my
>>         earlier classification of the event list in the 'non-pixelated'
>> group may have
>>         been in error.
>>         The events are measured by a detector with finite pixel size and
>> integration time,
>>         and these are, at least for Chandra, recorded in the event list
>> (ccd_id, chipx, chipy)
>>
>>     + But I not convinced that #events is the proper value for any
>> <domain>_dim field in ObsCore1.1
>>
>>     + The element/descriptions of the ObsCore1.1 *_dim fields are
>> directed at the
>>         regularly sampled pixel array  (Simple Image array) use case.  My
>> earlier comments was
>>         simply that the document should be specific about the values to
>> place provide for this case
>>         AND what values to put for every other case (which I grouped as
>> non-pixelated).
>>         So, the language may need to be tweaked, but this statement
>> should be true.
>>
>>     + We will need to have a review of how these fields should be
>> populated for each flavor
>>         of image/cube covered by the NDCube model.
>>
>>     Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Arnold Rots <arots at cfa.harvard.edu
>> <mailto:arots at cfa.harvard.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>         I beg to differ.
>>         Pixels (or voxels) are coordinate bins for which we provide the
>> value of some dependent variable.
>>         That is precisely what we do for photon events, too, except that
>> we enumerate all the pixels for
>>         which we have a measurement, rather than provide the dependent
>> variable value in an array
>>         where the position in the array implies what the coordinate bins
>> are. And that is another way
>>         of describing what I called a sparse cube.
>>
>>         For instance, for Chandra data we provide the time stamp of the
>> time bin (which does have a
>>         definite finite size), the CCD pixel coordinates, and the
>> quantized energy of the photons.
>>         To me, that is a perfect example of a list of enumerated pixels.
>>         Whenever we measure things and express them digitally, we are
>> effectively binning, either
>>         because we truncate, or because we round the value. And that
>> means that we are projecting
>>         our information on a pixel grid.
>>
>>         Let me be clear: I am not trying to make things more complicated;
>> rather, I prefer to define
>>         our concepts in such a way that in a generalization as much as
>> possible is covered.
>>         That does not mean that all possible special cases need to be
>> implemented, but that we
>>         keep the top level definition in mind when we implement, so that
>> we won't find ourselves
>>         later in a situation where we either can't accommodate an
>> important use case, or have to
>>         go to extreme lengths to fit a round peg into a square hole.
>>
>>         Cheers,
>>
>>            - Arnold
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>         Arnold H. Rots                                          Chandra
>> X-ray Science Center
>>         Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory                   tel: +1
>> 617 496 7701 <tel:%2B1%20617%20496%207701>
>>         60 Garden Street, MS 67                                      fax: +1
>> 617 495 7356 <tel:%2B1%20617%20495%207356>
>>         Cambridge, MA 02138 arots at cfa.harvard.edu <mailto:
>> arots at cfa.harvard.edu>
>>         USA http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>         On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:40 AM, François Bonnarel <
>> francois.bonnarel at astro.unistra.fr
>>         <mailto:francois.bonnarel at astro.unistra.fr>> wrote:
>>
>>             Hi all,
>>                   The discussion to decide if an "event list" is a sparse
>> cube because it is actually also a set of measurements
>>             or something radically different because it is made of
>> photons is subtle.
>>                   In any case, i think at the discovery purpose it is not
>> really easy and usefull to code the number of events
>>             in one of the "dim" columns we have.
>>             Adding a new one to do so ? Or waiting for a model to
>> describe this. I clearly prefer the second solution
>>             So "event list" in the dataproduct-type and NULL (or some
>> other undetermined value) in the dim fields should be
>>             enough at this stage
>>             Cheers
>>             François
>>
>>             Le 08/10/2015 20:53, Louys Mireille a écrit :
>>
>>                 Dear Tom, dear list members,
>>
>>                 I think I also support your point of view.
>>
>>                 Pixels or let say numerical elements along one
>> characterized axis
>>                 of a science ready data product  are the result of a
>> sampling step in the detectors, followed eventually by  a
>>                 projection in a
>>                 specified coordinate system.
>>                 An event , as far as is the physical phenomenon that is
>> converted/projected into a grid element.
>>
>>                 There are scientific features needed for a safe and rich
>> interpretation of the content of data set, that are not
>>                 covered in Obscore.
>>                 for instance :
>>                 - the signal to noise ratio in flux,
>>                 - the number on non null channels in a spectra
>>                 - the detection limit for a source in an image
>>                 - correlation factors between spaxels in a cube ,
>>                 - the proportion of good time intervals in a CTA
>> observation,
>>                 - the spatial density of detected sources in an image or
>> cube ( crowding factor- probably there should be a
>>                 better english name for that, sorry )
>>                 etc
>>                 ...
>>                 all this information is closer to the astronomers
>> concerns for advanced dataset selection, but is context dependent.
>>                 I think the number of events in an event list belongs to
>> this category.
>>
>>                 This could be interesting to explore further use-cases
>> for these specialized physical features  about the data
>>                 content.
>>
>>                 ObsCore should keep its general properties for global
>> discovery , and CubeDM could tackle the 'interpretation
>>                 profile' for various kinds of observation.
>>
>>                 Best regards , Mireille
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>                 Le 08/10/2015 19:45, Tom McGlynn (NASA/GSFC Code 660.1) a
>> écrit :
>>
>>                     I confess that I find this a bit weird. E.g.,
>> consider a telescope with several coaligned photon-counting
>>                     detectors (so multiple
>>                     detectors are looking at the same or overlapping
>> fields of view).
>>
>>                     After I combine detectors I can have sets of
>> multiple photons with identical energy, time, and position.
>>                     The photons may have been detected in different
>> detectors originally, but the scientist has thrown that
>>                     information away as irrelevant.  The whole idea of a
>> grid to me is that we only see each grid element once,
>>                     but now we have the same grid element showing up
>> multiple times.  To me a grid value intrinsically
>>                     represents some kind of integration over the grid
>> area/volume. Events typically represent discrete photons.
>>                     While there may be errors associated with the
>> measurement of the characteristics of the photon (and
>>                     Heisenberg suggests that there will be!) a photon is
>> a different class of beast than a grid element.   It's
>>                     sort of like saying that when we are taking a census
>> of people we should treat them as a grid of times and
>>                     places of birth.  We could do so but seeing the grid
>> as the underlying structure seems wrong...
>>
>>                          Regards,
>>                          Tom McGlyn
>>
>>                     Laurent Michel wrote:
>>
>>                         Arnold
>>
>>
>>                         I agree with your remark. Event lists can be
>> classified sparse cube. However, we do not have in Obscore
>>                         a column giving a the product class (pixelated or
>> not, sparse cube). We just have a product_type column
>>                         with a limited vocabulary. There is no field
>> giving explicitly  the product class which could help to
>>                         interpret correctly the content of the S-T-E axes.
>>
>>                         For now the point is to decide whether I) it's
>> better to complete Obscore 1.1  with just the *dim and
>>                         the extended list of product_type or II) whether
>> we have to target a better description of these new
>>                         categories of data products (new in term of
>> Obscore) .
>>                         In my opinion, the option I) is safer until the
>> event lists are better taken into account and modelled
>>                         in the VO.
>>
>>                         Bye
>>                         Laurent
>>
>>                         Le 05/10/2015 18:48, Arnold Rots a écrit :
>>
>>                             I don't think event lists should be
>> classified as /non-pixelated/.
>>                             If we want to model data consistently, they
>> should be classified as /pixel lists/:
>>                             each event is a pixel; we just end up with a
>> sparse hypercube.
>>                             If we were to add one more parameter: the
>> total number of pixels in
>>                             the data product, that would solve the
>> problem. For solid cubes it
>>                             would be the product of the *dims, for event
>> lists the number of events.
>>
>>                                 - Arnold
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>                             Arnold H. Rots Chandra X-ray Science Center
>>                             Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
>>            tel: +1 617 496 7701
>>                             <tel:%2B1%20617%20496%207701>
>>                             60 Garden Street, MS 67 fax: +1 617 495 7356
>> <tel:%2B1%20617%20495%207356>
>>                             Cambridge, MA 02138 arots at cfa.harvard.edu
>> <mailto:arots at cfa.harvard.edu>
>>                             <mailto:arots at cfa.harvard.edu <mailto:
>> arots at cfa.harvard.edu>>
>>                             USA http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>                             On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Laurent
>> Michel <laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr
>>                             <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr>
>> <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr
>>
>>                             <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>                                  Hello,
>>
>>                                  A consensus seems to be taking shape
>> about the model evolution for pixelated data:
>>                                    + Adding several fields to provide the
>> dimensionality in each domain.  (s_dim, em_dim, etc)
>>                             as described in the draft
>>                                    + These are added as 'required'
>> fields.. so must be populated for all records
>>                                    + These fields provide for instance
>> the size of each image axis.
>>
>>                                  These new fields can however not be used
>> to provide a robust representation the dimension of
>>                             non pixelated data (e.g. number
>>                                  of event in an event list)
>>
>>                                  The proposal to complete the version
>> would be:
>>                                    1) To keep the new *dim* fields
>>                                    2) To support the EventList and other
>> non pixelated as product_type
>>                                    3) To clearly specify that the *dim*
>> columns must be set with NaN for non pixelated data.
>>                                    4) To provide some use cases about
>> discovering non pixelated data with ObsTap
>>
>>                                  That would quiclky allow us to start the
>> RFC period for ObsCore without having to wait on a
>>                             agreement about how to model non
>>                                  pixelated data
>>
>>
>>                                  Laurent
>>
>>                                  --
>>                                  jesuischarlie
>>
>>                                  Laurent Michel
>>                                  SSC XMM-Newton
>>                                  Tél : +33 (0)3 68 85 24 37
>> <tel:%2B33%20%280%293%2068%2085%2024%2037>
>>                             <tel:%2B33%20%280%293%2068%2085%2024%2037>
>>                                  Fax : +33 (0)3 )3 68 85 24 32
>>                             laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr <mailto:
>> laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr>
>>                             <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr
>> <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr>>
>>                             <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr
>> <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr>
>>                                  <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr
>> <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr>>>
>>                                  Université de Strasbourg <
>> http://www.unistra.fr>
>>                                  Observatoire Astronomique
>>                                  11 Rue de l'Université
>>                                  F - 67200 Strasbourg
>>
>> http://amwdb.u-strasbg.fr/HighEnergy/spip.php?rubrique34
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> jesuischarlie
>
> Laurent Michel
> SSC XMM-Newton
> Tél : +33 (0)3 68 85 24 37
> Fax : +33 (0)3 )3 68 85 24 32
> laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr>
> Université de Strasbourg <http://www.unistra.fr>
> Observatoire Astronomique
> 11 Rue de l'Université
> F - 67200 Strasbourg
> http://amwdb.u-strasbg.fr/HighEnergy/spip.php?rubrique34
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dm/attachments/20151013/7b86cd65/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the dm mailing list