February 5, 2003 LHCb views on PI project proposal slide 1 LHCb views on PI project proposal John Harvey CERN

February 5, 2003 LHCb views on PI project proposal slide 2 Introduction Here we comment on the detailed proposal made by Vincenzo We try to pick out specific well defined items of common interest that we think can safely be started now We also try to point out areas where there are on-going activities that would benefit from being brought under the LCG umbrella. We mention what people LHCb has currently working on these topics to give an indication of our likely contribution.

February 5, 2003 LHCb views on PI project proposal slide 3 WP1 : Analysis Services We believe that it should be straight forward to make real implementations of the basic analysis tools we all need that are AIDA compliant.  (plotters, fitters, minimisers, histograms, ntuples etc. )  The ROOT tools should clearly form the basis of one of the first implementations. The abstract interfaces should be accessible from python to give interactive access to all components This WP can go ahead now and hopefully deliver components relatively quickly

February 5, 2003 LHCb views on PI project proposal slide 4 WP2 : Analysis Environment There seems to be a good level of overlap between the items described in this WP and other WPs and projects. WP2.1 falls under the domain of SEAL WP2.2 (core visualisation services) could be integrated in WP4 (Event and Detector Visualisation) WP2.3/2.4 there is overlap with SEAL at the level of the dictionary We think that this WP could wait until it becomes clearer whether some items are covered in other projects or whether they are better re-integrated in other PI WPs.

February 5, 2003 LHCb views on PI project proposal slide 5 WP3 : POOL and GRID We see a big overlap between the goals of this WP and our on- going Ganga project, in particular WPs 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 If there is agreement that this work is of common interest to all experiments then we think on-going activities, such as Ganga, should be brought under the LCG umbrella as soon as possible. Even if this effort is not regarded as high priority this approach will avoid workpaths taking divergent ways and avoid potential problems later on. There is no reason why leaders of WPs have to be based at CERN  we need to maximise the potential effort available Karl Harrison (Cambridge) and Alexander Saroka (Oxford) are the principal LHCb developers working on Ganga

February 5, 2003 LHCb views on PI project proposal slide 6 WP4 : Event and Detector Visualisation HepVis should provide the basic widget set for HEP Clearly potential for core visualisation services to be made in common  can we converge on a design that follows the blueprint model?  transient store for visualising objects, viewing, picking etc Main developers need to get together to discuss  Guy Barrand for LHCb