[Clas12_calcom] database tables

[Cole Smith]

I wasn't at the meeting but Nick's original question referred
to the capture window parameters.  I would suggest window_offset and 
window_width instead of pulse, to avoid confusion over the meaning.
Using fixed pulse integration windows could be dangerous.

Cole


On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, Raffaella De Vita wrote:

> Dear All,
> following Nick's question and the discussion we had last Friday, I edited the 
> document (see attachment) to reflect the proposed change to the /daq/fadc 
> table that would now also contain the parameter for Mode 1 analysis. The 
> proposed names are pedestal_start, pedestal_width, pulse_start, pulse_width .
> Comments are welcome.
> Best regards,
>     Raffaella
>
> nick markov wrote:
>>  Dear CALCOM group,
>>  I wonder if it possible and needed to add to the DAQ parameters tables
>>  parameters of MODE1 readings:
>>  FADC250_W_OFFSET
>>  FADC250_W_WIDTH
>>  Nick.
>> >  On Apr 1, 2016, at 11:09 AM, Mac Mestayer <mestayer at jlab.org> 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
>
>
>