REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE OPTICON 3D SPECTROSCOPY WORKING GROUP

 Petra Boehm             pboehm AT aip.de
 Thomas Becker           tbecker AT aip.de
 Veronique Cayatte       veronique.cayatte AT obspm.fr 
 Yannick Copin           copin AT strw.leidenuniv.nl 
 Begona Garcia           bgarcia AT ing.iac.es
 Bianca Garilli          bianca AT ifctr.mi.cnr.it 
 Rachel Johnson          raj AT ast.cam.ac.uk
 Andreas Kelz            akelz AT aip.de
 Markus Kissler-Patig    mkissler AT eso.org 
 Martin Roth             mmroth AT aip.de
 Juergen Schmoll         jurgen.schmoll AT durham.ac.uk 
 Lowell Tacconi-Garman   lowell AT mpe-garching.mpg.de 
 Jeremy Walsh            jwalsh AT eso.org (Chair) 

Jeremy Walsh opened the meeting. The WG has been expanded to include a new node - the Institute of Astronomy Cambridge. Ian Parry and Rachel Johnson are the two representatives and Rachel was at the meeting. Unfortunately Pierre Ferruit had trouble with travel arrangements and could not attend at short notice.

Klaus Strassmeier, on behalf of the AIP, welcomed the group. He mentioned that the AIP already has an active RTN (Star Formation) and other applications have been made, so there is plenty of local experience.

Euro3D proposal

The latest version of the proposal had been sent and Martin distributed copies of the Guide for Proposers and the Guide for Evaluators. He stressed that it is very important to obey the formal rules for a successful proposal. The meeting at ESO with Claus Madsen, the ESO representative at the EU, was reported. He had got feedback from the EU about the failed Euro3D proposal. The science was sound but there had been no improved access to infrastructures demonstrated. No RTD has been granted in astronomy. The advice to resubmit as an RTN should be followed. It should be made clear on the proposal how the evolution to an RTN and coordination with Opticon had happened. Claus also suggested to contact the EU before and to give them a copy of the proposal for comments. This can help in checking the formal requirements. The success rate for RTN's is around 15%. The other message he brought is that the EU loves Opticon so showing that we have Opticon blessing (such as a resolution at the OPTICON Board meeting in April encouraging the 3D Spectroscopy RTN) is a good thing!

Martin then outlined the scope of an RTN. The major objective is TRAINING OF YOUNG RESEARCHERS. Maximum age is 35 years. Maximum possible funding is 1.5MEuros with max 200KEuro per partner and no more than 40% in one country. Maximum period is 4 years. 60% of funds must be for personpower. Researchers must be hired from another country and should not have previously spent >12 months in the host country. There was no perceived advantage in terms of the EU in favouring pre-docs over post docs or vice versa.

Aspects of the proposal were discussed such as:
need to have a good workplan with achievable goals;
emphasize a connection with industry, so that something should be presented at an industrial fair once in the RTN;
hardware provision is almost excluded from an RTN;
important to explain intention of project in terms of funding, travel exchange and meetings.

From each partner, the requirements are:
1. Common understanding of the Euro3D goals
2. Commitment of own resources to the Network - the training resources from the RTN should be matched by the number trained
3. Description of team
4. Commitment to work plan
5. Collective training
6. Description of complementary work
7. The official cost of a postdoc and a Ph.D. student at the host institute must be provided. Having accurate figures will then allow a careful assessment of how many researchers we can afford for the RTN.

A vote was taken and it was unanimously decided to go for an RTN.

Martin outlined the evaluation criteria for an RTN (see Appendix E of the Guide for Evaluators). It was not clear how important was the emphasis on connections to other disciplines and Martin was to ask Claus about this aspect. One important aspect is that whilst we must emphasize the complementary expertise of the different teams the proposal must not be interpreted as a collection of teams with different plans. Common goals that could not be attained by individual groups are vital. Since we will be at least 8 participating groups, good coordination is required. A mid-term review of the RTN has to be conducted in order for the EU to monitor the progress of the contract. An internet site for common documents will be set up. Bianca made the point that some of the groups are already involved with large projects so that there is demonstrated organizational expertise.

In the training area, aspects to consider are the career prospects for young researchers and getting women as team leaders.

Martin outlined the procedure that takes place after the RTN is accepted by the EU. The project description becomes an official contract with the EU. Obviously this may require some changes which must be negotiated. There would be a workshop for the coordinator to attend. The Network coordinator liases with the EU and submits documents and reports and oversees the financial contributions according to the contract. There must be an agreement between the node coordinators and the Network coordinator.

Further points:
All teams to submit a figure for the RTN summarizing their science and instrument experience.
Training through the science was seen as a strong point.
On training Yannick was worried since Oasis on CFHT had not widely used on account of the preceived difficulties of the data. Even after a hands-on workshop.
There was discussion about students from other countries. In Italy foreign students are required to pass an exam in written Italian. For other countries (D and DK) this may not be a strict requirement.
Filling out of the B form Participant Profile/Information should be done soon as it requires entry of information from the administration of the participating institute.

A vote was taken on the period of the RTN and 3 YEARS was decided.

Martin emphasized that it was very important to keep to deadlines. If a group could not provide the required information on time it would have to be dropped since it would jeopardize the whole submission. The aim is to have a proposal almost ready by 20 April for comment by the EU, while still allowing enough time for last minute changes.

3D Data Format

It was stated that the IRAF project are looking at 3D formats and it was agreed that we should keep in contact.

Martin showed data from SAURON of the core of M32 which he had translated into the PMAS format consisting of a FITS file with associated tables. In this case the Sauron microlenses are square so translation to and from a cube was simple. The problem of dealing with microlens arrays which are not square was highlighted. Care must be taken that we do not settle on a format that looses data in the exchange. For example with circular microlenses and image(s) giving the spectra for each lens this cannot be uniquely mapped onto a 3D FITS image. Ancilliary information on the sky coverage of each individual spectrum must be carried in order not to loose (spatial) information. Yannick emphasized that the format should be lossless. If interpolation is needed to go from one format to another then there is some loss. Yannick wondered if MOS spectra could also be accommodated on the same 3D format to make it more general.

Tiger Format

Integral Format

VIMOS Format

SPIFFI Format

TEIFU, SMIRFS and GMOS Format

Giraffe Format

PMAS Format

CIRPASS Format

There was little time for discussion and no agreement was reached on a common format to adopt. It was suggested that Jeremy compose a voting form and distribute it.

3D Opticon Board meeting

ESO Future Instrumentation Conference

Web pages