Re: Draft operational concept document

[Brian Glendenning <bglenden@cv3.cv.nrao.edu>]

[Incidentally, I realize I am not a SSR member. Please let me know if
you'd like me to let you do your work in peace.]

A couple of minor comments on items in the last part of the paper.

1. Post-processing

I don't believe that any post-processing system for users should be
mandated - that is output formats etc. should not be the "private"
format of a particular package. 

However I believe that the ALMA project should ensure that all required
capabilities are available in one package so users who want to improve
their images etc. are not required to go back and forth between
packages, although of course they can do so if they wish.

NRAO's policy is that AIPS++ will fully support ALMA.

2. Data Formats

While I am not at all a fan of FITS (I've written too many FITS readers
and writers to be one!), I think that all science data should be
archived in FITS format. Besides various IAU mandates FITS proponents
are apt to tell you about, it does help with interchange between
software packages.

For UV data, the best ("least worst documented" according to its author)
specific FITS format I know of is the VLBA format which I believe has
been adopted by a few other interferometers (Penticton galactic plane
survey, S2, Mitaka, GMRT). It can be found at:

http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/%7Ecflatter/FITS-IDI.html

The amount of effort required to fine-tune the format should not be
underestimated.

Cheers,
Brian