From gwatts@phys.washington.edu Mon May  3 14:27:33 2004
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:47:38 -0700
From: Gordon Watts <gwatts@phys.washington.edu>
To: Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo@fnal.gov>
Cc: Marco Verzocchi <mverzocc@fnal.gov>, d0dfwg@fnal.gov
Subject: RE: Comments from the WZ group on data format issues

Hi,
  That is correct. I don't see how we can do it -- unless we move
between two versions of reco that have the same tracking and the same
jets. And for some algorithms, like JLIP, we need the corrected jet ET
to apply the various probability distributions, so that would also have
to be done (correctly) at the reco level.

  On the other hand, if all of that is stable through a build of reco,
then we should be able to move the code that is in d0correct back. BUT,
we have to move enough of the code (jet corrections, etc.) back so that
bid is dealing with the same level physics objects.

  At the moment, given these arguments, I'm not yet convinced moving bid
back to reco is worth the effort.

	Cheers,
		Gordon.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gustaaf Brooijmans [mailto:gusbroo@fnal.gov] 
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 12:41 PM
To: Gordon Watts
Cc: Marco Verzocchi; d0dfwg@fnal.gov
Subject: RE: Comments from the WZ group on data format issues


Hi,

>   It is worse that getting n-1 tuning out of reco. Indeed, they will
get
> some sort of results out of that, but not only will they not be the
most
> efficient (perhaps), but the TRF's supplied by the bid group will be
> wrong. The results would be good enough for establishing that the
> technical bits of your physics analysis work correctly, but not much
> more.

Am I interpreting this statement right when I'm saying this means b-id 
doesn't intend to certify reco code?

Gustaaf