This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
|
open:wp4:wp4techforum5:hackathon [2019/02/27 18:37] bonnarel |
open:wp4:wp4techforum5:hackathon [2019/03/04 09:51] (current) morten |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| I ) ObsCore and other VO standards in the context of EST and solar data | I ) ObsCore and other VO standards in the context of EST and solar data | ||
| - | Participants Morten Frantz, Marco Guenter, Thomas Hederer, François Bonnarel | + | Participants Morten Franz, Thomas Hederer, Carl Schaffer, François Bonnarel |
| Discussion was about how Solar data can be described and discovered using an ObsCOre/EPNTAP strategy. | Discussion was about how Solar data can be described and discovered using an ObsCOre/EPNTAP strategy. | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| **Wednesday 27 th at 2 PM : Tme Series + time //Salle de réunion downstairs//** | **Wednesday 27 th at 2 PM : Tme Series + time //Salle de réunion downstairs//** | ||
| - | Ada, Mireille, Laurent, Marco (?) , Markus (?),François, Dave (?) to discuss TimeSeries next steps. | + | 17 attendants: Carlos Rodrigo, Markus Demleitner, Marco Molinaro, Mark Taylor, Stelios Voutsinas, Margarida Castro Neves, François-Xavier Pineau, Matthieu Baumann, Mireille Louys, Francois Bonnarel, Sebastien Derriere, Zheng Meyer-Zhao, Thomas Boch, Laurent Michel, Gilles Landais, Dave Morris, Ada Nebot |
| - | | + | |
| - | Topics : | + | 2 topics discussed: Discovery and Data Model |
| - | DAL access | + | {{:open:wp4:wp4techforum5:20190228-time-series-summary.pdf|20190228-time-series-summary}} |
| - | | + | |
| - | Mapping | + | |
| - | + | 1 topic need for further discussion and didn't have the time | |
| - | Utypes | + | {{:open:wp4:wp4techforum5:timeserieshackhaton.pdf| DM annotation and utypes (focusing on data part)}} |
| **Wednesday 27 th at 4 PM : Provenance next steps Salle de Cours** | **Wednesday 27 th at 4 PM : Provenance next steps Salle de Cours** | ||
| - | Laurent, Mireille, François + ..... to discuss Provenance next steps. | + | Laurent, Mireille, François + Nicolas Renault Tinacci, Markus Nullmeier to discuss Provenance next steps. |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | implementation CTA at LUPM Montpellier | ||
| + | shown by Nicolas Renault Tinacci ( LUTH) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Demo of a database instance in Jupyter Note book | ||
| + | |||
| + | Implementation test for an activity extracting Muons’ signal from a raw observation | ||
| + | |||
| + | All DM classes implemented. ParameterDescription | ||
| + | This re-uses some provenance classes from CTA pipe library and adds some to be compliant to the model. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mathieu Servillat &Catherine Boisson work in another part of the pipeline , on advanced analysis steps of gamma ray data | ||
| + | gamma_py package | ||
| + | |||
| + | Some features : roles depend on the activity description | ||
| + | e.g role = dl0.subevent could be published as a vocabulary with a name space cta:dl0.subevent | ||
| + | |||
| + | In this example execution config attributes are embedded into the instance of Activity | ||
| + | |||
| + | Parameter not implemented in this instance because not needed . | ||
| + | question : is it using default values? | ||
| + | then these can be discovered via the ParameterDescription links , but the Activity —> parameter link should tell it . | ||
| + | e.g param_default =true in Activity | ||
| + | |||
| + | * config repository: | ||
| + | All configs for activities are stored in a specific system, and re-used when necessary via copy or via reference | ||
| + | comment by Laurent : how to store provenance objects | ||
| + | Elements with diffrent life cycles , like parameters attached to an Activity should be stored in a different class / table than long lasting elements . | ||
| + | They disapear with their related Activity. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * CTE functions for recursive queries in ADQL | ||
| + | Markus Nullmeir will write some documentation for them and provide examples . | ||
| + | |||
| + | will be tried in Prov-Tap prototype. | ||
| **Wednesday 27 th at 4 PM : Platforms Salle de réunion dowstairs** | **Wednesday 27 th at 4 PM : Platforms Salle de réunion dowstairs** | ||
| Line 70: | Line 105: | ||
| Francoise (not available during Tuesday 26 Hack-a-Thon), Marco + ... | Francoise (not available during Tuesday 26 Hack-a-Thon), Marco + ... | ||
| + | |||
| + | ** Tuesday 16: Transition to ADQL 2.1 ** | ||
| + | |||
| + | Participants: Markus D., Mark T., Grégory, Stelios, Dave + others | ||
| + | |||
| + | Topic: How should servers and clients behave with respect to | ||
| + | minor version-sharp LANG parameters in TAP queries? | ||
| + | |||
| + | There is now ADQL 2.1, and services want to accept LANG=ADQL-2.1 (as per | ||
| + | TAP). Should they accept LANG=ADQL-2.0, too. Should they declare | ||
| + | version 2.0 in TAPRegExt? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Should we care about minor versions at all? Mark's use case: Syntax | ||
| + | highlighting. There already is a language selector in TOPCAT, filled | ||
| + | from language/version from TAPRegExt. | ||
| + | |||
| + | But then there's people with hacked scripts not looking at TAPRegExt, | ||
| + | perhaps just passing in LANG=ADQL-2.0 as gleaned from TAP. Should this | ||
| + | work on a 2.1 only service? Yes, because there's no way it could | ||
| + | (regularly) fail (ADQL 2.0 is a strict subset of ADQL 2.1). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Should an ADQL-2.1 server declare support for 2.0 in TAPRegExt? Mark | ||
| + | thinks he'd not turn off syntax highlighting just because he doesn't | ||
| + | know a version. Mark would prefer no separate declaration if the | ||
| + | behaviour is actually the same; users would worry about a meaningless | ||
| + | decision. It's a different thing if there's actually a behavioural | ||
| + | difference. So: No 2.0 declaration unless there's actually different | ||
| + | parsers behind it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Have a versioning explanation in the ADQL spec: If you're a client and a | ||
| + | service only declares support for a newer minor version than you know, | ||
| + | use the latest artefacts you know about and hope for the best. Also | ||
| + | advse to leave out the version completely unless there's a strong reason | ||
| + | to specify it (as in: when using new features in a cross-service query | ||
| + | to fail early -- perhaps).. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ADQL-2.2 to a ADQL-2.1 service: most likely it'd work because most | ||
| + | people won't use the new versions. Even if it fails, perhaps "I don't | ||
| + | support DISTINCT ON" might be more useful than "I don't support ADQL | ||
| + | 2.2". But then: people who do this kind of thing should be able to read | ||
| + | "Just cut away the version number" error message, and this concrete | ||
| + | information might be useful in other use cases. So: Fail with higher | ||
| + | versions. | ||