STC2:Coords Proposed Recommendation: Request for Comments
SummaryVersion 1 of STC was developed in 2007, prior to the development and adoption of vo-dml modeling practices. As we progress to the development of vo-dml compliant component models, it is necessary to revisit those models which define core content. Additionally, the scope of the STC-1.0 model is very broad, making a complete implementation and development of validators, very difficult. As such it may be prudent to break the content of STC-1.0 into component models itself, which as a group, cover the scope of the original. This effort will start from first principles with respect to defining a specific project use-case, from which requirements will be drawn, satisfied by the model, and implemented in the use-case. We will make use of the original model to ensure that the coverage of concepts is complete and that the models will be compatible. However, the form and structure may be quite different. This model will use vo-dml modeling practices, and model elements may be structured differently to more efficiently represent the concepts. This model describes the Coordinates model and covers the following concepts.
Implementation Requirements(from DM Working group twiki): The "IVOA Document Standards" standard has a broad outline of the implementation requirements for IVOA standards. These requirements fit best into the higher level standards for applications and protocols than for data models themselves. At the Oct 2017 interop in Trieste, the following implementation requirements for Data Model Standards was agreed upon, which allow the models to be vetted against their requirements and use cases, without needing full science use cases to be implemented.
VO-DML Validation:
Serializations:
Software:
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
Links with MeasThe Coordinates model a base component, primarily used to support the development of other models. Most significantly is in support of the Measurement model, which is the core model of interest to most use cases. Information about the relation to that model, how the use case requirements divide up, etc. can be found on the STC2 page
Comments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2019-09-17 - 2019-10-21Comments by Mark C-D: -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2019-09-20 In generating the XML format example files I found an issue which probably should be changed:
I'm reporting this on behalf of David Berry, who is working the Transform model implementation thread (see twiki use case #2 ). The description there involves passing transform model Mapping instances between gWCS and AST, and so didn't have any lien on the Coordinates model. In the process, he has expanded the scope to a more useful thread for the AST library, which is to: "import/export the full WCS associated with an image" This includes descriptions of the Pixel axes, image axes, and the associated transforms, which brings the Coords model into the scope. The thread wants to specifically NOT include the coordinates themselves. NOTE: this is similar to a usage discussed in the context of SIA2 for image cutouts, so may be more broadly applicable. In working this, he is having some trouble due to a change made some iterations ago, back in 2017, which separated the Frame and CoordSpace elements. From that point, they have been linked only via the Coordinate value itself, which references both a Frame and an axis of the CoordSpace. To satisfy this extended usage case, would add a requirement to the Coords model: "enable the description of a complete WCS ( axes, frames, mappings between ) independent of the coordinates in that space"
This seems like a reasonable extension of the usage case to me.
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2019-09-17 - 2019-10-21
TCG Chair & Vice Chair | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | I made a related comment in the MeasRFC page: At the end of section 2.1.1 under Physical Data (Observables) I see mention of saptial, time, polarization, and spectral. Then in the model I see GenericCoordFrame, SpatialFrame, and TimeFrame... and lower down GenericCoordValue, SpatialCoord, TimeStamp, and Standard1DCoord. Several issues here: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | I made a related comment in the MeasRFC page: At the end of section 2.1.1 under Physical Data (Observables) I see mention of spatial, time, polarization, and spectral. Then in the model I see GenericCoordFrame, SpatialFrame, and TimeFrame... and lower down GenericCoordValue, SpatialCoord, TimeStamp, and Standard1DCoord. Several issues here: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. naming consistency: why TimeStamp and not TimeCoord? why GenericCoordValue and not GenericCoord?
2. for polarization, would one use generic or standard1d (coord) with a BinnedAxis? 3. again, what about spectral? there is no SpectralFrame but I recall that a minimal spectral axis (FITS WCS paper III and reflected in CAOM) requires a fair bit of special pieces of metadata and a GenericCoordFrame only has a refPosition... the treatment of spectral axis may be complete but it is very opaque and I can't really tell. TODO: CompositeCoord vs CoordValue and all those subclasses of SpatialCoord Applications Working GroupData Access Layer Working GroupData Model Working GroupGrid & Web Services Working GroupRegistry Working GroupSemantics Working GroupData Curation & Preservation Interest GroupEducation Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupSolar System Interest GroupTheory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsMinor comments:
Standards and Processes Committee
TCG Vote:If you have minor comments (typos) on the last version of the document please indicate it in the Comments column of the table and post them in the TCG comments section above with the date.
|