Axel Donath

Just to add: I think it should be possible that an event file lives independently and provides all the necessary info that is need to analysis it. However the information...

@fabiopintore I think the event files simulated by `ctools` include this information on the `CALDB`, but as a custom non-GADF keyword. Is this correct?

@maxnoe Yes, I mostly agree. But it also applies to observed data in a broader context: Typically different reconstruction of the same data (e.g "pass6/pass7/pass8" in the Fermi context or...

Just wanted to support the proposal here, it's probably not controversial at all. From the side of the analysis tools having to support the format, it's of course convenient to...

@jknodlseder I think its just about the consistency between the IRFs. There is nothing wrong about the actual "global" order of the axes...

I guess one could even argue, that the current order of the energy dispersion is easier extensible for a future "phi" (angle in the field of view) dependency and maybe...

@maxnoe I actually agree. For me there was just the question whether there is a "natural" global order to the common axes as well, like: `[spatial dims, energy, irf dims]`

@jknodlseder But seriously there must be the possibility to choose the axis order for the visualisation, or is there any official FITS convention that fixes the visualisation order for ND...

I agree with @TarekHC here. I think the "gammaness" will never be a parameter that users can freely cut on for a high level analysis. I think it's rather going...

Thanks @cosimoNigro for the references! The main point in my previous comment was, that I think the selection on "gammaness" will not be part of the "standard analysis" that is...