The JCMT will be happy to contribute science cases and comments on data models for 3D data. We generate data cubes from our correlator (calibrated in antenna temperature but that's a argument for a different dm thread!) We (the JAC) also have an IFU on UKIRT that drives our desire to have something that will work in the infrared and submm.
Slightly tangential, but we did do an analysis of submm requirements for applications using cube data (at ADASS) if anyone is interested:
http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/software/pubs/adass2004_p2_1_15.pdf
Tim
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Igor Chilingarian wrote:
> Hello Doug,
>
> Today I discussed with Francois some questions concerning 3D data model
>
> Your idea about science case driven approach is a perfect proposition.
>
> I have a kind of plan for what to do for a moment:
> 1) Define clearly the science case for IFU data I'm working on: studies of
> stellar populations in nearby galaxies using absorption-line spectra
> 2) During the next week hopefully we'll have two science cases formulated
> for Fabry-Perot data: studies of the gaseous kinematics in disc
> galaxies, and studies of gaseous shells (SN remnants) in nearby
> galaxies. I asked scientits working with this type of data to describe
> these cases.
>
> Each of these science cases will be presented as a short part of text (15-20
> lines) including scientific objectives and brief description of the scientific
> data processing with the requiremets about the descripition of the data.
> It should help to figure out the requirements for the 3D data model, and
> for 3D data access layer. We'll probably need the same to be done for
> other 3D data types, but I don't know personally people working with radio
> and X-ray cubes.
>
> 3) As Francois proposes me, I'll try to add the necessary features to the
> Characterisation data model to be able to deal with the IFU data.
> I'll do my best to finish this (with a help of Francois) before the
> end of March
> 4) At this point it will be clear (hopefully) what we need to have in the
> 3D data model, and whether we need it separated from more general DMs
> (Characterization and Observation), and it would be possible to start
> the real work on the document draft.
>
> Do you agree on such a plan?
>
> With best regards,
> Igor
>
-- Tim Jenness Head of JAC Scientific Computing Group http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~timjReceived on 2005-02-17Z20:29:26