X-Sympa-To: ids.analysis.forum
Received: from hector.cls.fr (osis.cls.fr [62.161.32.21])
	by hermes.cls.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA11273
	for <ids.analysis.forum@hermes.cls.fr>; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:57:39 +0200
Received: by hector.cls.fr (Postfix)
	id 8A0432A4BA; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:57:39 +0000 (GMT)
Delivered-To: ids.analysis.forum@cls.fr
Received: from rly17e.srv.mailcontrol.com (orange-103.cls.fr [62.161.32.14])
	by hector.cls.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 410F7113147
	for <ids.analysis.forum@cls.fr>; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:57:39 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sol.csr.utexas.edu (sol.csr.utexas.edu [129.116.190.1])
	by rly17e.srv.mailcontrol.com (MailControl) with ESMTP id j9HKvYcx012575
	for <ids.analysis.forum@cls.fr>; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:57:35 +0100
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by sol.csr.utexas.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9HKvYr3008260
	for <ids.analysis.forum@cls.fr>; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:57:34 -0500
Received: from sol.csr.utexas.edu ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (sol.csr.utexas.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with LMTP id 07998-07 for <ids.analysis.forum@cls.fr>;
 Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:57:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [129.116.190.133] (ries.csr.utexas.edu [129.116.190.133])
	by sol.csr.utexas.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9HKvV5c008252
	for <ids.analysis.forum@cls.fr>; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:57:31 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: ries@sol.csr.utexas.edu
Message-Id: <p06020400bf79c0a7160d@[129.116.190.133]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:57:25 -0500
To: ids.analysis.forum@cls.fr
From: "John C. Ries" <ries@csr.utexas.edu>
Subject: new DOMES number for HBLB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at csr.utexas.edu
X-Mailcontrol-Inbound: c!PzNVdyE6pAgYrdZN4HGLIOLgW8bYa616COtuSiUsY=
X-Spam-Score: 0.6
X-Scanned-By: MailControl A-05-40-01 (www.mailcontrol.com) on 10.69.0.127
X-Validation-by: feissel@ensg.ign.fr

Hi Everyone,

I understand now that HBKB will have to be renamed HBLB. While the 
antenna is unchanged and thus does not require a new DOMES ID, I 
don't recall a previous situation where two different station 'names' 
got the same DOMES ID. It seems like it could cause confusion. But 
perhaps not.

So we can continue to treat data with the HBLB identifier as if it 
was still HBKB in our processing. In that case, I would continue to 
give it the same internal ID number I use for HBKB as well as the 
same DOMES ID. If no one sees any problem with that, it seems the 
simplest solution.

Alternatively, the station could get a new ID and be treated like a 
new site, with an eccentricity or survey tie of exactly 0,0,0. This 
keeps track of the equipment and name change but would seem to 
unnecessarily complicate the analysis.

I don't see any other practical choices.

Best regards,
JR


 
