Source identifiers

[micheledoro]

There are two yaml files with the same name. One in input/sources for the specific source, and one in data/year/paper/ for a specific paper about possibly another source. The name of the files can be the same, but their content totally different. Does this make sense? I believe it can create some confusion...

[pdeiml]

That it right that there are two files with the same name.

The idea is as follows:
In /input/sources there a files with general information about a source, e.g. the names, tev cat id and the corresponding references. I call these files "source definition files".
In /input/data the datasets are stored which are either lightcurves, seds or spectra.

[cdeil]

@micheledoro - there's some info here: https://gamma-cat.readthedocs.io/contribute/input.html

I think for the input folder, the idea of having one file with basic info on each source, separate from the data entry from each paper is a good one, no?

For the output folder, i.e. how to expose the full data collection to users, it's less clear. I think for now we're working towards something that mirrors the data structure in input also in output, i.e. just to expose all available information to users. I think that's a good starting point, but then we'll have to see how users want to work with the data, and either add other "views" to the same data on top of that, or directly re-structure the data to some other form or organisation via the scripts that transform input -> output.

Leaving this issue open for now as a place for discussion ...

[micheledoro]

I am fine with the current structure. The only thing I don't like so much is the fact that two different files have the same name (although, yes, they are in different folders). A choice like
/input/sources/tev-000001.yaml --> /input/sources/gammacat-000001.yaml would be preferable to me (it also remarks the fact that like this is one per source and not one per paper).

[pdeiml]

@cdeil Do we want to implement the change of file names as Michele suggested? Or what is your opinion of this issue?

I think that two different names would be helpful and nice but I have never ran into a problem with the current convention. Therefore, I would leave it as it is and close this issue.

[cdeil]

I'm not sure here and would like to discuss with @micheledoro and you at the next Gamma-Cat call (which we could do in a few weeks, not scheduled). Discussing complex things / making decisions over Github can be a time sink for all involved.

I just now introduced this label, which we can put on issues such as this one, so that we don't forget:
discuss-together Something to discuss at the next Gamma-Cat call