From serban@bnl.gov Thu Apr 29 12:06:30 2004
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:13:40 -0400
From: Serban Protopopescu <serban@bnl.gov>
To: Dugan ONeil <dugan_oneil@sfu.ca>
Cc: greenlee@fnal.gov, Serban PROTOPOPESCU <serban@fnal.gov>,
     Gordon Watts <gwatts@phys.washington.edu>,
     Yaroslav Kulik <skulik@fnal.gov>, deliot@hep.saclay.cea.fr,
     Yann Coadou <yann@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: Trigger info and the data format working group

    [ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

Hi Dugan,

There are TMBTree classes for L1, L2, L3 information that were written
by Gordon. I would hope that whatever Yann is doing can be either
incorporated into Gordon's scheme or his classes can be converted to
look like what Yann is doing if that is more convernient. In any case
if you are following root tree restrictions for the class definitions
it should be straightforward to replace Gordon's classes with Yann's
if there is good reason to believe they offer superior performance.
At the very least Yann and Gordon ought to be speaking to each other.

       Serban  

Dugan ONeil wrote:

>Hi Herb, Serban, Gordon, Slava, Frederic
> 
>I am very glad you have agreed to tackle the issue of a common ROOT
>format for D0! This is certainly needed.
> 
>I wanted to make you aware that a couple of SFU people (led by Yann
>Coadou) have been writing tools to look at trigger output in the TMB. A
>standard tree is produced using some well-thought-out classes and some
>nice macros are provided to look at the contents (including every
>trigger subsystem, no more need to supply a toollist, reference
>distributions with chi-squared fits, etc.). While you are considering
>what trigger info needs to go into the new standard format I hope you
>will contact Yann about using (or adapting) his classes. It is better
>that we get the chance for input early in the process then rewrite
>everything from scratch.
> 
>Do I understand correctly that this might be a wholesale reworking 
>of the TMBTree (ie. it is still TMBTree in name only) or is it meant to
>be a small perturbation to that format?
>
>Thanks,
>Dugan.  
>  
>