[Clas12_calcom] database tables

[Mac Mestayer]

Dear CALCOM group;

Thanks for the concise and well-written guidelines.
They are very good for focussing discussion.

I agree with most of the 'best practices' advocated, so
I will only mention my two disagreements here:

1) sector, layer, component need not be enforced on the
tables (CCDB is much more flexible than CALDB was in this regard).
Not only that, but sector, layer, component is not at all applicable
to the drift chamber data-base.  See 
https://clasweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/DC-calibration_Constants
for a description of the DC calibration table structure.
We use indices like region, superlayer or region, superlayer, board, 
connector, etc. and I refuse to call a superlayer a layer, etc.
There is no need to try to enforce a false structure on everyone.

2) we should not use run number to denote a variation, such as
Monte Carlo.  This is precisely what variations are designed to do.
Talk to Hall D to find out how they use various variations to denote
Monte Carlo.  In fact, I think we may want to use actual run number
ranges for the Monte Carlo variations to follow, for example, different
luminosities and this proposed use of run numbers will just confuse
people.

 				regards, Mac

"mestayer at jlab.org", (757)-269-7252

On Fri, 1 Apr 2016, Raffaella De Vita wrote:

> Dear Harut and Bryan,
> following the discussion we had on the database, we have collected a set of 
> "guidelines" concerning the calibration constants table structure, the use of 
> variations, the use of run numbers etc.  that we would like to distribute. 
> You can find in attachment the document we have produced.
> Let us know what you think about it.
> Best regards,
>    Raffaella
>
>