<!DOCTYPE html>
<html data-lt-installed="true">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body style="padding-bottom: 1px;">
<p>Hello Markus,</p>
<p>Thank you Mireille and Markus for your proposals and discussion.</p>
<p>Here, I will give some inputs in the context of the HEIG... in
the text [...]<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 25/04/2025 à 09:29, Markus
Demleitner via heig a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20250425072940.aij3vrjg4if6z5hd@victor">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Dear Mireille,
Thanks for your VEP.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 06:16:36PM +0200, Mireille Louys via semantics wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">• Proposedefinitionsforaproduct-type *event-bundle:* An event-bundledataset
is a complex object containing an event-list and multiple files or
other substructures that are products necessary to analyse the event-list.
Data in an event-bundle may thus be used to produce higher leveldata
products such as images or spectra.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I think the definition is reasonably clear and applicable in
practice. Before merging this, however, I'd have a few requests for
clarification:
(1) used-in: I really, *really* would like to see actual, published
data here (always, in all VEPs; it's a pain if we go into all the
trouble of defining a concept and then nobody's ever using it in
practice). I see that CSC on <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://cda.cfa.harvard.edu/csctap">http://cda.cfa.harvard.edu/csctap</a> (or
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://cda.cfa.harvard.edu/csc21tap">http://cda.cfa.harvard.edu/csc21tap</a> [1]) has an obscore table. It
would really be excellent if they could mark up their event bundles
with the new term, such that we could say:
used-in: dataset ivo://csc.harvard.edu/scsr2?some-obs-id on <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://cda.cfa.harvard.edu/csctap">http://cda.cfa.harvard.edu/csctap</a>
That would help me maintain a clear consciousness when setting up the
new term[2].</pre>
</blockquote>
In the VHE domain, CTAO, KM3NeT, SWGO wish to publish their current
and future data in VO. The current running experiments MAGIC and
HESS are working toward the publication of their legacy data into
the VO.<br>
And this is also in this context that such extensions are of
interest for us.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20250425072940.aij3vrjg4if6z5hd@victor">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">(2) Relationship: That's an operational field, i.e., I need to create
an RDF triple from this. The question thus is: is #event-list wider
than #event-bundle or is it the other way round? I could conjure up
arguments for both, so, as usual, I'd approach the question from the
user side: If I'm looking for #event-bundle, do I want to see
#event-list, too? If I'm looking for #event-list, do I want to see
#event-bundle, too? Whatever ought to encompass the other is the
wider term.</pre>
</blockquote>
event-bundle is e.g. event-list + response (a set of IRFs)
(+provenance+readme+etc)<br>
In this context, one would need to use DataLink to access to all
files<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20250425072940.aij3vrjg4if6z5hd@victor">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">(3) Rationale: If the answer to both of the two questions in the
preceding paragraph is "Yes", then it turns out the concepts are
identical (A ⊂ B and B ⊂ A implies A = B), and hence you really don't
want a new concept but augement #event-list to be something like,
say, "Event list, possibly augmented with ancillary information".
This points to an issue with your rationale: It basically argues that
there's something you would like to say.</pre>
</blockquote>
Thank you for asking.<br>
<p>First, our IRFs are not just accessory, they are mandatory for HE
(photons and neutrinos) to make physics (for data analysis
specialists: forward-folding likelihood analysis in the Poissonian
regime). Otherwise, there is no point to make a VO publication.<br>
Then, in term in semantics, ancillary is pretty vague. They are
response files, or Instrument Response Files, a very specific type
of data. They should be considered also as data, even if some are
coming from simulations but not all.<br>
In addition, one has use cases where these IRFs can be used
without event-list: the case of simulations. Also, one can have
one set of IRFs for many observations. So a data producer could
use a dedicated entry in ObsCore for that.</p>
<p>This is why we really wish that the "response" (the IRFs) has
their own existence, with clear descriptors. And in this way, one
can create safely bundles, that will be the set of data to
download for >99.9% of the users.</p>
<p>I hope that it helps to understand and helps to further discuss
if you are still not yet convinced...<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20250425072940.aij3vrjg4if6z5hd@victor">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">An aphorism I'm bringing up rather often these days is: "In protocol
design, don't think about what you want to say. Think about what
others want to listen to." Hence, it's be really great if the
rationale said why someone would want to look for #event-bundle
*rather than* #event-list (or for #event-list rather than
#event-bundle, if the the former is the narrower term). Could you
provide that information in the Rationale section?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>The note associated to the HEIG creation gives such rationale,
but one might need to develop a bit more. Thank you for the
suggestion.</p>
<p>The best,<br>
Bruno<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20250425072940.aij3vrjg4if6z5hd@victor">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Thanks,
Markus
[1] Regrettably, the CSC TAP services seem to be mildly broken at the
moment. Coming in with http, they issue https redirects which
confuse TOPCAT; CXC folks: if you really need the forced redirects
(see
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://blog.tfiu.de/foced-https-redirects-considered-harmful.html"><https://blog.tfiu.de/foced-https-redirects-considered-harmful.html></a> for
a better alternative) then please update your registry records to
point to the https URIs. Even with https, however, I'm getting a
"cscrel2.dbo.obscore not found" error from TOPCAT when running
select top 30 * from ivoa.obscore where dataproduct_type='event-list'
It would be great if you could fix that (and a regular run of stilts
taplint is good practice anyway)
[2] You see,
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://ivoa.net/documents/Vocabularies/20230206/REC-Vocabularies-2.1.html#tth_sEcC.2"><https://ivoa.net/documents/Vocabularies/20230206/REC-Vocabularies-2.1.html#tth_sEcC.2></a>,
while not exactly normative, is clear on:
In particular, ensure [...] resources mentioned in Used-in can be
reached and reflect the proposed term [...]
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Bruno Khelifi
Physicist at CNRS (laboratory APC, Paris)
Phone: +33.1.57.27.61.58 - Fax: +33.1.57.27.60.71
APC, IN2P3/CNRS - Universite de Paris Cite
</pre>
<lt-container></lt-container>
</body>
</html>