Index: trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.datasystem/response.v1.txt =================================================================== --- trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.datasystem/response.v1.txt (revision 41207) +++ trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.datasystem/response.v1.txt (revision 41208) @@ -88,6 +88,15 @@ affected by poor PSFs in the stack. - ** th - + ** the galaxy models are not fitted on each warp. rather we + calculate the normalizations and chi-square values for a grid of + galaxy model shape parameters for each warp image. The values + for each grid point are combined across all warps to generate a + total stack-equivalent grid. At this point, the best parameters + are determined from the grid (interpolating to the chi-square + minimum). This is mathematically equivalent to simultaneously + fitting (via a grid search) the pixels from all warps to a single + model, preserving the full signal-to-noise. We have updated the + text to add some detail to the description of what is being + measured to clarify this point. ## Section 3.11 @@ -107,6 +116,131 @@ aren't described until 4.1.3. + ** we added a sentence to 4.1.1 to note this point. + Missing punctuation in parenthetical HST GSC reference? ** fixed +## Section 4.1.4 + +There's some inconsistency here between "detID" and "det_id" (same for +"image"), both referring to measurement IDs in DVO. If those are +supposed to be meaningfully different, I'm confused. + + ** in the DVO section (and in the DVO schema), these should all be + 'detID' and 'imageID'. In the gpc1 database schema, the + underscored versions are used. we have fixed the erroneous + det_id and image_id entries in this section. + +## Section 4.2 + +I tend to associate the term "ubercal" specifically with the SDSS +version of the algorithm that coined the term, and think it probably +should be referenced here even if the actual algorithms used are only +vaguely similar. + + ** we agree and have added a sentence with reference. + +## Section 4.3 + +Is the PSPS database another spatially-shared, file-based database +using custom technology, a MySQL database like the Processing +Database, or something else? I assume the same system is used at both +IFA and MAST? + + ** PSPS is based on MS SQL Server. We have added a bit of + description to 4.3. + + +## Section 5.1.1 + +Apparent typo or missing text: macro ex- its job successfuly". + + ** this should have read 'macro exits successfully' ("exits" was + beign hyphenated). fixed. + +## Section 5.1.4 + +"responsible to" -> "responsible for" + + ** fixed + +## Section 5.2 + +> Pairing warps together is simplified by the observing strategy in +which the same pointing is observed multiple times in a night. By +limiting to warp-warp pairs from the same pointing, the problem is +significantly reduced from the arbitrary case. + +This (as well as the following paragraph) seems to imply that you +typically generate differences between images taken in the same night, +which of course limits you to detecting only very short-timescale +transients and fast-moving objects. I suspect that's just not what you +intended to imply, or is the nightly processing really not supposed to +find e.g. supernovae? + + ** the wording here was unclear that the nightly processing system + generates warp-warp difference images (for asteroids), warp-stack + difference images (for 3pi supernovae), and MD nightly stack - + reference stacks difference images (for deep MD supernovae). We + have updated the text to explain these differences. + +## Section 5.2 + +Are the `projection_cells` described here the same as or related to +the DVO partition cells of 4.1.3, or the RINGS.V3 skycells of 3.7? + + ** same as RINGS.V3. we have clarified this and also cleaned up the + wording of this paragraph. + +This is a more general concept, but it came to a head in this section: +I found the use of so many notation styles for different concepts more +distracting than helpful. I think I was able to infer that small caps +were used for processing stages and non-bold italics were used for +database tables, but it wasn't clear why some other stages were +written in fixed-width mixed case instead (were these scripts, rather +than stages?), or what the use of bold-italic meant (everything +eles?). I'd recommend either adding a notation legend paragraph early +in the paper or just cutting down on the number of styles used. + + ** We agree and have simplified the typography a bit (using only aa + single face for both db tables and db columns), eliminating the + use of boldface. We have also added a paragraph in the + introduction section to define the type faces. + +## Section 5.3 + +Was Nebulous just used by the orchestration levels like pantasks, or +was it used within the Perl scripts and C programs that constitute the +algorithmic steps as well? + + ** Nebulous is used by any level of the software that needs access + to a specific file. the c-based processing programs have direct + interfaces as do the Perl-based wrappers (ippScripts). We have + added a paragraph to explain this. + +Was the database used by Nebulous integrated with the Processing +Database at all (or even part of the same server)? + + ** these two databases are on separate machines and kept + independent. A sentence was added to the end of 6.1 to note + this. + +It's a bit strange to first encounter what seems like a core part of +the data access system this late in the description, given that it +would have needed to be updated by all of the processing steps +mentioned early. This would of course make more sense if Nebulous is +in fact used by the lowest levels of the pipeline and hence a Nebulous +database entry is created whenever a file is written to disk. + + ** our organizational scheme is meant to place the details closest + to the science analysis up front and leave the more general + systems toward the end, with only a few necessary broad concepts + introduced early on for context. Thus section 3 is about the + analysis steps and the related programs, section 4 is about the + science database and the calibration, section 5 is more generic + operations concepts, and section 6 is the computing hardware. + Within section 5, the processing organization comes first, while + nebulous is left to the end since it seems (to us) to be very + general and should not be driving the science decisions. +