Categories: Project, Program ID, Run ID, Period

[Michael Hilker]

- Project and Program ID should be joined. It's basically the same.
   The one can be derived from the other. My suggestion:
   UltraVISTA - 179.A-2005
   VHS - 179.A-2010
   VIDEO - 179.A-2006
   ... etc.
   The bracket with A,B, C,... is not needed since it indicates the
   period.
- Run ID and Period are equivalent. The one can be derived from the other.
   I think the sliding bar for period is sufficient, Run ID can be skipped.
   The sliding bar should start with period 84, although period 60 is used
   for science verification (SV). For those SV projects, the category
   period is not valid I would say.

[Fabien Chéreau (xalioth)]

- I don't really like to join Project and Program ID in the same category because it becomes less legible.
- The bracket with A,B, C,... can be dropped if they are dropped from the data sources.
- Run ID was suppressed for querying (still there for display).
- If period 60 is not really period 60, then the problem should be fixed in the data sources, i.e. the period field should be kept undefined.

[Remco Slijkhuis (rslijkhuis)]

- I would also not prefer to see the Project and Programme ID joined; my reason is that although the tool is being developed with an emphasis on the Public Surveys, it will be perfectly usable for checking any kind of EDP release as well; that is, as long as Project and Programme ID are not equated in such a hardwired manner.

- In fact, in general I would not hardwire anything, also not the Run ID and Period. In EDP at least we don't think in this way about these. Also, some data products may span several periods. I'm not sure yet how to map this. If it has to be computed/derived from anything, I'd do it from the 'start and stop' datetimes (start of the first observation and end of the last observation making up a data product).