These are chat archives for OpenCosmics/fits-evaluation

9th
Jun 2015
Achintya Rao
@RaoOfPhysics
Jun 09 2015 08:11
@/all: Next steps? Evaluate FITS/JSON with ERGO data? How do you propose we coördinate efforts?
Hugo Day
@Tontonis
Jun 09 2015 12:50
Wow - WOW! Guys, I've just gotten caught up after being off the grid for the weekend and really, I'm really impressed by all the hard work you guys have put into this!
As I understand - there's now a way to pull data from HiSPARC's data and format it to JSON?
@RaoOfPhysics Think that's right - seems good steps would be to be able to have other sources of events (ERGO in this case, CERN@School stuff too?) and see if the JSON formatting is robust for that input
Achintya Rao
@RaoOfPhysics
Jun 09 2015 12:54
@Tontonis: We’re still waiting for ERGO data, but maybe people can get craking with the CERN@School stuff (even though it’s not designed for cosmics)?
Hugo Day
@Tontonis
Jun 09 2015 12:54
Also to put HiSPARC data into other formats (FITS being one we thought about) and then comparisons.
Achintya Rao
@RaoOfPhysics
Jun 09 2015 12:55
Also, @berghaus may want to comment on the JSON/FITS choice.
@Tontonis: Yup!
Hugo Day
@Tontonis
Jun 09 2015 12:55
If it's got a data format we can cram into the spec drawn up it should be good
Given we're now post Sprint - perhaps keeping open issues and the mailing list would be best for now? It makes documentation clear and provides an avenue for communication in future, given this is sort of voluntary for us all perhaps doing occassional sprints would be good if we want to move forwards with it?
Although some input from others like Arne and co. have done would be useful too (see from the chats about what an event represents, counts were not something I'd thought of personally ^^)
Achintya Rao
@RaoOfPhysics
Jun 09 2015 12:57
Issues and mailings lists are go, for me. I would suggest we continue with this Gitter chatroom as well. The whole thing’s public and accessible to anyone who wants to contribute.