From dalton@fnal.gov Tue Nov 16 17:08:26 2004
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:13:49 -0600
From: Drew Alton <dalton@fnal.gov>
To: Herbert Greenlee <greenlee@fnal.gov>, Reiner Hauser <rhauser@fnal.gov>
Cc: Gilvan Alves <gilvan@fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Common Analysis Format Proposed Contents

Hi Herb and Reiner,
    I've read over this proposal and I am happy.  I have one serious
concern and two small issues.
    The serious concern is the FPD output.  I understand that this is
something a very small fraction of the experiment uses, however if it
isn't included in this format, then analyzers will need to rerun over the
full skim(s).  (Note that we have people planning to do dijet, W/Z, 
jpsi studies so we'll reach a large fraction of the different skims)
The diffractive group won't gain much benefit from the CAF if they have
to re-due all the production.  I understood that Gilvan Alves was going
to work on this.  Please coordinate with him to see if he can get
something in.  
    The two small concerns:
1) Is there a reason that the TMBV0 case doesn't include converted
photons.  I would thing these V0's would be very helpful for photon
studies.
2) I assume that the TMBJets attribute cpsE, is actually present for
FPS as well...If I am wrong someone might want ask someone for the
equivalent.
    Thanks.
                                                -Drew



On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Herbert Greenlee wrote:

> Hello Physics and Algorithm Conveners,
> 
> A draft content proposal (version 1.0) for the proposed Common Analysis
> Format is available on the d0dfwg web page at the following url:
> 
> http://www-d0.fnal.gov/Run2Physics/working_group/data_format/content_v10.pdf
> 
> By now, content proposals exist for most branches, although a few are
> still missing.  Please ask your groups to review the proposed contents and
> either give your approval or suggest changes.  Comments can be sent to the
> data foramt group mailing list d0dfwg@fnal.gov.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Herb and Reiner
>