Print

---

Hello,
I have been wading through the comments from the collaboration and
implementing changes. The result is in
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/prl/
prl_paper.ps is the new version of the paper while the other text files
are responses to the posting.

There was a general need for clearer introduction and for improved
description of the BRBR equation. In order to be able to do this I put in
text the table from systematics. My point of you is that every
number that was in the table is in the text (except the sums...) and that
it is true that this makes life a bit more difficult to people interested
in combining, but we know them ... Also, I think that the relationship
between numbers and descriptions is now much clearer and that anyhow there
qill be a longer paper soon that will incorporate all the details.
This said I am open to suggestion or to reverting to the table is an
alternative way of saving space is found.

There are a few changes that I did not implement (or only partially) that
I would like to discuss with you:
	1) Franz proposes again a change of notation
He says:
"
I still prefer the notation "B -> X_ubar l+ nu"
over "Bbar -> X_u l nubar",
and I would switch, mainly for consistency with other BaBar papers
In "Vub exclusive" and "semileptonic branching ratio", we have always
started with the particle, not the antiparticle.
The subscripts "sl" can be removed everywhere
"

I find this change an unnecessary pain
	2) I had to chang by hand some numbers in the files that Urs
generates automatically. We should change the script:
		- in the introduction the two theo errors on Vub were
		  lumped together
	        - the sel and Mx efficiencies were reported in %
		- the results in Table I were converted in %

	3) there were two requests to number the equations. I think it is
not needed and would be tough to achieve without wasting precious space
	4) there were some requests on the figures:
		- less ticks and also on the other two sides
		- add on Fig1 "MC" explicitely
		- add to figure 1 the same plot as (b) but for the
background. It could be referred to when discussing the discriminating
power. This might be a good idea and merging together the vertical lables
(they are a.u. anyhow) it would fit in the same space
		- figure 2 : the two plots should be made same size (tough
to see the difference
		- fig 3a is still missing the "other" in the legenda
		- vivek did not like figure 3b because he thought it was
hinting at a problem when there is none. I don't see what we should do for
this

	A part for the changes in the figures (at least one of them), I
think we should discuss this draft asap. If somebody is really unhappy
about the structural changes let us discuss it (I did it in steps which
are undoable), otherwise I would propose to meet on wednesday at 8:30 PT
to finalize the response.
		ciao
		ric