From: clyne@ncar.ucar.edu
Date: Fri
Sep 12, 2003 2:30:42 PM US/Pacific
To: jshalf@lbl.gov
(John Shalf)
Subject: Re: DiVA Survey (Please return by Sept 10!)
John Shalf writes:
On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 11:57 AM, clyne@ncar.ucar.edu wrote:
Obviously, this could pose a signficant amount of overhead on
the
entire
system, and the effort may not be justified if the DOE doesn't
have
great need for dealing with instrument acquired data. I only
added the
point as a discussion topic as it is fairly important to us. At
the
very least, I would hope to have the flexibility to hack support
for missing data if it was not integral to the core framework.
It should be included.
I regard the framework as an opportunity to
encode best-practices for things we *do* know and that are not
well
supported by existing systems. While I can't see making it a
requirement for *all* components, it could certainly be defined
in such
a way that such information could be forwarded through a
vis/analysis
pipeline opaquely as "optional information" for
algorithms that can
actually understand it.
So from a requirements standpoint, it should be a requirement
that any
design does not preclude incorporation and transparent transport
of
this kind of information.
From an implementation standpoint, we'll
have to figure out how such information can be propagated by
components
that have no interest or understanding of it (otherwise, each
requirement/desire must be understood by *all* components... not
a
practical situation).
Agreed on both counts!
Jc