Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider changing "mock catalog" terminology #195

Closed
lgarrison opened this issue Sep 13, 2019 · 5 comments
Closed

Consider changing "mock catalog" terminology #195

lgarrison opened this issue Sep 13, 2019 · 5 comments

Comments

@lgarrison
Copy link
Collaborator

We have two categories of estimators: those that operate on "simulations" (cartesian coordinates) and those that operate on "mock catalogs" (RA/DEC). But the latter is certainly not restricted to mock catalogs—it works just as well on real data! So perhaps we should change the terminology in the documentation to avoid confusion on this point.

Some ideas: instead of "mock catalogs", how about "RA/DEC catalogs" or "sky-coordinate catalogs"? @manodeep, other ideas?

Or, we could keep the "mock catalogs" nomenclature but clarify this point in prominent places in the documentation.

@manodeep
Copy link
Owner

@lgarrison Another option could be "On-sky co-ordinates" and highlight that those can be real galaxies as well as mocks.

@manodeep
Copy link
Owner

@lgarrison You were clearly prescient. We should somehow highlight that the "mocks" routines are aimed for observed galaxies! If the simulated galaxies have been projected to on-sky positions, then the "mocks" routines will also work for such 'mock' galaxies...

For starters, should we add a bold line in the top of the README?

@manodeep manodeep added this to the v2.3.2 milestone Nov 19, 2019
@manodeep
Copy link
Owner

This is the only remaining issue earmarked for 2.3.2. Renaming the directories and the files consistently is a bit of undertaking, so should we start with updating the README and the docs?

@lgarrison
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lgarrison commented Dec 20, 2019 via email

@manodeep manodeep mentioned this issue Dec 22, 2019
@manodeep
Copy link
Owner

Fixed by #205

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants