From gusbroo@fnal.gov Fri Apr 30 16:42:51 2004
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:51:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo@fnal.gov>
To: Marco Verzocchi <mverzocc@fnal.gov>
Cc: Gordon Watts <gwatts@phys.washington.edu>, d0dfwg@fnal.gov,
     Terry Wyatt <twyatt@fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Comments from the WZ group on data format issues

Hi Marco,

> I personally don't care, I am not going to use it, and I believe that a
> lot of analyses
> in the WZ group will not use it because we need the full TMB++. And I don't
> believe that the full TMB++ will be ever made available inside a ROOT
> format.

As far as I know, no decision has been made yet as to what the format
will be, so we don't know that it will be a root format.  One of the
boundary conditions is of course that we all use root for displaying
histograms and some minimal histogram manipulation.  The committee
has been explicitely instructed to consider things like edmroot etc.

>
>   What I don't accept and what I won't accept are changes to the
> computing model
> of D0, where:
> * algorithm development is not done inside the D0 framework or at least made
>    available inside the D0 framework

I don't think the D0 computing model ever imposed where algorithm
development is done (we wouldn't have AA), etc.  But it is clear that
algorithms need to be ported back to the D0 framework to be made available
to the whole collaboration at the reco output level.  b-tagging for
example does need to be part of reco, and needs to produce the appropriate
chunks.  As we know, it is unavoidable that some corrections and algorithm
refinements are applied post-reco however, and it's important that we
rationalize the way this is done.

What is important at this stage is that you submit your analysis
requirements to the committee, and that they combine all of this
information and come up with a format and analysis model that satisfies
the requirements.

Gustaaf