Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
Responses
|
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
Responses
<--
| |||||||
> > | Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
Responses
<--
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
Responses
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
<--
|
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Responses
<--
|
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | In the "CoordFlavor" element concerning spherical and unitsphere: | |||||||
> > | In the "CoordFlavor" element concerning spherical and unitsphere: | |||||||
different conventions are in use for the 2nd angle (latitude).
The latitude convention measures this second angle from the equatorial
plane, but other conventions measure this second angle angle from one
of the poles (as "north polar distance" or "south polar distance").
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | logical to attach the Epoch to the AstroCoords structure (section 4.6) | |||||||
> > | logical to attach the Epoch to the AstroCoords structure (section 4.6) | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | The STC defines the units as an attribute to the AstroCoords elements. | |||||||
> > | The STC defines the units as an attribute to the AstroCoords elements. | |||||||
When used in the VOTable context, a conflict may (and frequently does) | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | arise between the units defined at the STC/AstroCoords and the units | |||||||
> > | arise between the units defined at the STC/AstroCoords and the units | |||||||
defined in the VOTable(s). One solution could be that STC defines only
default (suggested) units.
Related questions: (a) heterogeneous units like "deg deg m" have no physical meaning, and are a source of problems for unit interpretors and (b) units may differ between value, errors and sizes.
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Many people would like to use STC as an abstract model for Coordinates to be reused in various more practical contexts. According to that it would be nice to have independant definitions for "CoordResolution" "CoordSize" and "CoordPixSize" independant from Coordinates. Actually this is already the case in the xml schema but not in the document. Paragraphs 4.3.1.4, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.1.6 should be "upgraded" to the status of 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 to describe these concepts as independant features and just referred to in 4.3.1. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | By the way, as mentionned in the draft (4.3.1.5) CoordSize clearly | |||||||
> > | By the way, as mentionned in the draft (4.3.1.5) CoordSize clearly | |||||||
depends on the context which means it is more related to the process
of observation/simulation than to the abstract definition of Coordinates. This would also emphasize the need of the redefinition of Size outside Coords.
-- FrancoisBonnarel 17 Jun 2005
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Observation and Characterisation data models, we also pointed out the concepts of Resolution (CoordResolution in STC) and Sampling(Precision) (CoordPixSize in STC) as properties of a single observation or a data collection (surveys, for instance). | |||||||
> > | Observation and Characterisation data models, we also pointed out the concepts of Resolution (CoordResolution in STC) and Sampling(Precision) (CoordPixSize in STC) as properties of a single observation or a data collection (surveys, for instance). | |||||||
Each concept is described on each axis: spatial, temporal, spectral, and with several possible layers of description. The fact that Resolution is embedded below Coordinates in the UML diagram, makes it more difficult to re-use STC classes in the Characterisation UML diagram itself. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Concerning units used for Resolution or PixSize, astronomers may use different units from what is used in Coordinates. For instance, positions may be given in degrees and Resolution (spatial) in arcseconds instead. | |||||||
> > | Concerning units used for Resolution or PixSize, astronomers may use different units from what is used in Coordinates. For instance, positions may be given in degrees and Resolution (spatial) in arcseconds instead. | |||||||
Pixsize for the time coordinates may be given as seconds and not hhmnss as the time coos.
It seems important to allow these concepts to have their own units redefined with their value (as any quantity); if no units attribute is redefined, the Coordinates units could be used as default.
-- MireilleLouys 20 Jun 2005
Responses
<--
|
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | * (22) *Resolution, pixelsize and size (section 4.3.1) * | |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
In the usage we want to make of STC in other modeling efforts, namely
Observation and Characterisation data models, we also pointed out the concepts of Resolution (CoordResolution in STC) and Sampling(Precision) (CoordPixSize in STC) as properties of a single observation or a data collection (surveys, for instance).
Each concept is described on each axis: spatial, temporal, spectral, and with several possible layers of description. The fact that Resolution is embedded below Coordinates in the UML diagram, makes it more difficult to re-use STC classes in the Characterisation UML diagram itself.
Concerning units used for Resolution or PixSize, astronomers may use different units from what is used in Coordinates. For instance, positions may be given in degrees and Resolution (spatial) in arcseconds instead.
Pixsize for the time coordinates may be given as seconds and not hhmnss as the time coos.
It seems important to allow these concepts to have their own units redefined with their value (as any quantity); if no units attribute is redefined, the Coordinates units could be used as default.
-- MireilleLouys 20 Jun 2005
Responses
<--
|
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | * (22) *Resolution, pixelsize and size (section 4.3.1) * In the usage we want to make of STC in other modeling efforts, namely Observation and Characterisation data models, we also pointed out the concepts of Resolution (CoordResolution in STC) and Sampling(Precision) (CoordPixSize in STC) as properties of a single observation or a data collection (surveys, for instance). Each concept is described on each axis: spatial, temporal, spectral, and with several possible layers of description. The fact that Resolution is embedded below Coordinates in the UML diagram, makes it more difficult to re-use STC classes in the Characterisation UML diagram itself. Concerning units used for Resolution or PixSize, astronomers may use different units from what is used in Coordinates. For instance, positions may be given in degrees and Resolution (spatial) in arcseconds instead. Pixsize for the time coordinates may be given as seconds and not hhmnss as the time coos. It seems important to allow these concepts to have their own units redefined with their value (as any quantity); if no units attribute is redefined, the Coordinates units could be used as default. -- MireilleLouys 20 Jun 2005 | |||||||
Responses
<--
|
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | -- FrancoisOchsenbein - 16 Jun 2005 | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | ||||||||
Additional comments about STC, mostly originated from trials
to connect VOTable to STC
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | coordinate frame, and it is currently not possible to do so via XPath or "utype" mechanism. Several possibilities of adding this possibility can be imagined (more on the discussion list). | |||||||
> > | coordinate frame, and it is currently not possible to do so via XPath or "utype" mechanism. Several possibilities of adding this possibility can be imagined (more on the discussion list). | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | -- FrancoisOchsenbein - 16 Jun 2005 | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | ||||||||
Responses
<--
|
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
-- FrancoisOchsenbein - 16 Jun 2005
Additional comments about STC, mostly originated from trials
to connect VOTable to STC
| |||||||
Responses
<--
|
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Responses
<--
|
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Responses
<--
|
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Responses
<--
|
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Responses
<--
|
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
Responses
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
<--
|
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Responses
<--
|
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Responses
<--
|
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005 | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Responses
<--
|
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005 | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005 | |||||||
Responses
<--
|
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
Responses
<--
| |||||||
> > | Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
Responses
| |||||||
Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | -- ArnoldRots - 16 May 2005 | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | -- ArnoldRots - 16 May 2005 | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | I'm concerned about the amount of "implementation" that has been done to date. Could we have a definitive statement of what is serving as our 2 implementations? I don't think having some example XML instance documents is sufficient for serving as an "implementation". We need actual software that actually does something with it. Use of STC in SkyNode does qualify; however, I think it is fair to say that this is only partial use. Something like the footprint service would perhaps provide more coverage of the schema. A stylesheet that converts STC into an astronomer-friendly description of a coordinate system, region, etc. would also be useful. It's not until a developer (because users are going to look at this stuff) actually sits down with STC and tries to use it will we understand if the schema does the job. | |||||||
-- RayPlante - 16 May 2005 | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Responses | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Specifically: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | -- ArnoldRots - 16 May 2005 | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | -- ArnoldRots - 16 May 2005 | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | -- ArnoldRots - 16 May 2005 | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | -- ArnoldRots - 16 May 2005 | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | -- ArnoldRots - 17 May 2005 | |||||||
<--
|
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Resource Metadata RFC | |||||||
> > | Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFC | |||||||
This document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation.
In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment.
Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.
Comments
I'm concerned about the amount of "implementation" that has been done to date. Could we have a definitive statement of what is serving as our 2 implementations? I don't think having some example XML instance documents is sufficient for serving as an "implementation". We need actual software that actually does something with it. Use of STC in SkyNode does qualify; however, I think it is fair to say that this is only partial use. Something like the footprint service would perhaps provide more coverage of the schema. A stylesheet that converts STC into an astronomer-friendly description of a coordinate system, region, etc. would also be useful. It's not until a developer (because users are going to look at this stuff) actually sits down with STC and tries to use it will we understand if the schema does the job. -- RayPlante - 16 May 2005 Responses
<--
|
Resource Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
I'm concerned about the amount of "implementation" that has been done to date. Could we have a definitive statement of what is serving as our 2 implementations? I don't think having some example XML instance documents is sufficient for serving as an "implementation". We need actual software that actually does something with it. Use of STC in SkyNode does qualify; however, I think it is fair to say that this is only partial use. Something like the footprint service would perhaps provide more coverage of the schema. A stylesheet that converts STC into an astronomer-friendly description of a coordinate system, region, etc. would also be useful. It's not until a developer (because users are going to look at this stuff) actually sits down with STC and tries to use it will we understand if the schema does the job. -- RayPlante - 16 May 2005 Responses | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
<--
|
Resource Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
I'm concerned about the amount of "implementation" that has been done to date. Could we have a definitive statement of what is serving as our 2 implementations? I don't think having some example XML instance documents is sufficient for serving as an "implementation". We need actual software that actually does something with it. Use of STC in SkyNode does qualify; however, I think it is fair to say that this is only partial use. Something like the footprint service would perhaps provide more coverage of the schema. A stylesheet that converts STC into an astronomer-friendly description of a coordinate system, region, etc. would also be useful. It's not until a developer (because users are going to look at this stuff) actually sits down with STC and tries to use it will we understand if the schema does the job. -- RayPlante - 16 May 2005 | |||||||
Responses
<--
|
Resource Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Responses | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
<--
|
Resource Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
Responses
<--
|