Re: Source Catalogue DM

From: Matteo Guainazzi <Matteo.Guainazzi-at-sciops.esa.int>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:38:39 +0000
Dear Anita,

 many thanks for your comments on the Source Catalogue DM. Most of them are being taken into account in the ongoing production of the first document draft. I detail hereby a few exceptions - as well as some more qualitative additional comments:
  1. the "Source Catalogue DM" aims indeed at being - as you wish - "source-centered". Its overall rationale is to isolate elements which belong to, e.g., external models such as "Observations" or "SED", and put link to the relevant models. Hence, I have moved "snr" and "detectionProbability" to "SED" and "Observations", respectively, as you suggest. I am open and keen to do the same if further "duplicated items" are spotted
  2. the "AGN" box is indeed a "Classification"-type box, and will be renamed accordingly. As such, it is intended to be neatly separated from the "Morphology" box, which should contain only purely observational properties, as you suggested
  3. although a simple logical flag to highlight orbiting objects is surely a possible solution, I am not sure I understand why the "Orbit" element should make any harm. I have left it as it was in the original scheme, waiting for more discussion on this point.
  4. I am not sure I understand your suggestion to substitute "varAmplitude" with "d(flux)/d(time)". "d(flux)" is "varAmplitude", if I understand correctly what you mean. On the other hand, "d(time)" can be often misleading, as it may be related to the observation sampling rather then to the intrinsic variability timescale of the source. I have left it as it was in the original scheme, waiting for more discussion on this point. I have left as well "varPeriod" and "varType", which look to me unambiguous, and therefore worth being included in the model
  5. it goes without saying that many - if not most - of the quantities in the model are wavelength-dependent. We have "Source.frequency", in facts
  6. is "limiting noise" the same as "localBackgroundNoise"? I guess so. In this case, I believe that it is more appropriate to leave it in the "Observation" box
 Regards, Matteo
-- 
Matteo Guainazzi
XMM-Newton SOC				Matteo.Guainazzi@sciops.esa.int
European Space Astronomy Centre	of ESA	Phone:     +34 91 8131 176
VILSPA, Apartado 50727, E-28080 Madrid 	Fax:       +34 91 8131 172         
Received on 2005-09-26Z08:39:20