From serban@bnl.gov Thu Apr 29 16:19:55 2004 Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 14:49:48 -0400 From: Serban Protopopescu To: Dugan ONeil Cc: Gordon Watts , greenlee@fnal.gov, Serban PROTOPOPESCU , Yaroslav Kulik , deliot@hep.saclay.cea.fr, Yann Coadou 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, It is true that no decision has been made yet on a D0 standard root format. But it would be foolish to develop a totally new format, that has even less chance of becoming a D0 standard. It is hard to get people to adopt a standard, particulalry if you are asking them to abandon something they are used to in favor of something they know nothing about. I think making L1,L2,L3 classes compatible with the tmb tree should be relatively straightforward. If they are not, how do you propose combining them with the rest of the d0reco information? The way I see it there are basically two choices: 1) you use classes and make your information available in object oriented form, in which case all we have right now is tmb root tree 2) you fill a root tuple with the information in arrays. For some time we have been toying with the idea of edmroot. That suffers in spades with the problem that tmb tree faced, it is late and it is not tested. In my view it is not a realistic option at this point. Serban Dugan ONeil wrote: >Hi Gordon, > OK. We did look at the code in TMBTree before starting. The reason that >we didn't just add things to TMBTrees is because it was not THE D0 >standard format at the time (wouldn't want it to go away from underneath >us). A lot of the work that Yann has put in has been to fill out the >info.....he has added many classes for different L3 objects for example. >He says that most of what he has done he could translate to >TMBTree-style with just some tedious changes to how the classes are fed. >The ROOT macros should require very little modification. > >As long as Yann and Gordon stay in touch I think we can take good care >of the trigger content of the TMBTree. We will still complete the work >on trigsimcert for p17 so you should see an announcement of its >existence (+ features) soon. > >Thanks, >Dugan. > >On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 18:42, Gordon Watts wrote: > > >>Hi Dugan, >> Good point. Thanks. If we don't get in touch with you soon enough >>pester me again. I don't know how this is going to work out, but I'll >>try to make sure that we add it to the list of things. >> >> Cheers, >> Gordon. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Dugan ONeil [mailto:dugan_oneil@sfu.ca] >>Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 11:34 AM >>To: greenlee@fnal.gov; Serban PROTOPOPESCU; Gordon Watts; Yaroslav >>Kulik; deliot@hep.saclay.cea.fr >>Cc: Yann Coadou >>Subject: Trigger info and the data format working group >> >>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. >> >>