A set of typical array observing modes: Project Scientist.
Expected data rates and volumes/scan lengths: Project Scientist.
A defined set of calibration techniques/processes: Project Scientist.
A set of initial specifications for each component: Project Team.
Defined responsibilities for each pipeline component: Projects Team.
Programming language employed. (Python seems to be agreed upon at this time): Project Team
Early Decisions for the Pipeline
Scope of the project: Does expandability create too much added complexity that negatively impacts the 2010 commissioning schedule.
Does infrastructure exist for pipeline implementation using parallel processing architecture.
Calgary Contingent has this capability currently
Bob Garwood and Amy Shelton need to reconcile this by July time frame.
Additional meta-data inclusions.
A data set for development: Do we need a set generated form the August/September telescope tests, or does archived data exist that will suffice.
Concerns
The position for a Project Scientists has not been filled. DJ Pisano and Jay Lockman are interim; however both have other duties which limits efforts in defining the scope and content of the pipeline.
Can the August/September tests be accomplished by committee. (current thinking is affirmative).
The data reduction methodology is perceived has potentially evolving with the development process complicating the tasks.
Miscellany
Advantageous to use code from other projects.
Umass pipeline array algorithms and software components applicable. If so, how much can be used?
Assumption: The GBT IDL data formats will be compatible with the pipeline. If not an IO module can be developed for this task.
Reconvene on a July time frame to satisfy prerequisites.