<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Zhiwen Zhao <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:zwzhao@jlab.org" target="_blank">zwzhao@jlab.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":2yd" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden">For the output tree format, I think we definitely need a tree or a bank contain the event info.<br>
But the critical thing is that each sub-detector should be able to define it easily and freely.<br>
They can have very different truth info and digitization and the requirement can be different at<br>
different stage of study.</div></blockquote></div><br>Certainly. But it would be better to define a good, general format for detector information which different detector groups can use as a baseline and, if needed, modify to suit their needs than to have them re-invent the wheel for each detector in inconsistent ways. (At the moment, for instance, different banks use different names to refer to the same quantity.)</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Event, primary, and trajectory data can, I think, be structured the same for hits in all detectors.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">This reminds me: I'd like to see some degree of standardization of volume IDs. Right now it's anarchy.<br><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">- Richard S. Holmes<br> Physics Department<br> Syracuse University<br> Syracuse, NY 13244<br> 315-443-5977<br></div>
</div></div>