[Clas12_calcom] database tables

[Cole Smith]

Mac,

The discussion about how to use run ranges in MC studies mainly
arose to avoid complicated naming schemes for variations.  This
was noted as a potential problem in the original CCDB specification
document by Mark.  Some of us want to do sector only or layer only
variations for calibration systematics studies and may want to exclude
other detector variations that introduce unwanted variations. Somehow
it has to be made easy to know whose variation does what. So either
we impose some naming convention for variations or restrict run ranges
to specific combinations.

That said, I like the suggestion that run ranges denote broad study
categories like luminosity, geometry configurations, KPP or calibration.
Perhaps that is a better way to preserve some order and avoid variation
proliferation.

Cole

On Fri, 1 Apr 2016, Mac Mestayer wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Clas12_calcom mailing list
> Clas12_calcom at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_calcom
>
>