https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 8.3.4 803005 13-09-2019 https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/browse/DAMD-24 Data Model <p>We need a pfsSimObject module. Proposed changes from existing datamodel.txt are currently only:</p> <ol> <li>Definitely add a LINETBL HDU, with at least <tt>lambda</tt>, <tt>amplitude</tt>, <tt>width</tt>, <tt>name</tt> columns.</li> <li><em>Possibly</em> drop FLUX image, since the reference data are in the FLUXTBL HDU. But FLUX could be useful for quick identification or for some users. In any case, assert that FLUXTBL is definitive.</li> </ol> DAMD-24

Add pfsSimObject module

Task Normal Open Unresolved price cloomis Tue, 3 Oct 2017 18:48:38 +0000 Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:00:07 +0000 Tue, 3 Oct 2017 18:48:38 +0000 0 2 <p>This has changed significantly, partly from discussions on the associated <a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/browse/INFRA-208" title="Create repo for simulated spectra, etc." class="issue-link" data-issue-key="INFRA-208">INFRA-208</a> and partly from what Sean Johnson has been doing. Please look at the current `datamodel.txt` and comment.</p> <ol> <li>Dropped FLUXTBL HDU, kept FLUX, added LAM.  Yes, FLUXTBL instead of (LAM, FLUX) appears to be a better match to `pfsObject` files, but we don't need any of the other FLUXTBL columns. So go for a simple structure.</li> <li>Dropped all the sky and observation info in both the file name and the content.</li> </ol> <p>Questions:</p> <ol> <li>Do we want to require any additional header cards (Z, other properties, some name)?</li> <li>Do we want to apply <em>any</em> constraints on the resolution?</li> </ol> <p>I think the only thing to consider beyond what we have now is whether we want to add emission lines in a table. I suggest that we defer this until that becomes necessary.</p> Relates INFRA-208 Development Rank 0|02qpt6:508yl0chzzy0000qi Sprint 2DDRP-2019 H 2DDRP-2019 I Story Points 2.0