NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairTCG coordination is fine with this Proposed Recommendation because has gone a thorough review by TCG and community (twice), answered the comments and is accompanied by a proper set of serializations, validators and tools, and updates a central component of the IVOA architecture using the VO-DML standardised approach. The TCG review and vote has been closed, the document is fine to be pushed further along the REC path to Exec evaluation. This will happen as soon as the Coordinates DM will reach the same stage given the direct dependency of Measurements DM on it. -- JanetEvans, MarcoMolinaro - 2022-07-15Applications Working Groupvery minor commentsPrevious version: : 0.x if it lead to nothing from my validator in http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VODML/20180519/IVOA-v1.0.vo-dml.xml tag <identifier></identifier> <uri> </uri> are required before <title>IVOA Reference Types Data Model ala VO-URP</title> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Response: I have not seen this in my validation runs. However, this is identifying an error in the IVOA model, not in this one. The IVOA model vo-dml/XML file seems to be missing the uri node, which is required (and required to be before title as you say). As for the previous version.. I'm not sure if you are suggesting this be removed/empty since there is no previous version? -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-07-21 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Data Access Layer Working GroupA couple of minor comments only, the standard looks good otherwise
Data Model Working GroupBeing closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19Grid & Web Services Working GroupGiven the answer to the Semantic WG, I do not have any particular comment on this standard. -- GiulianoTaffoni - 2022-06-27Registry Working GroupNo particular comment on this standard. -- RenaudSavalle - 2022-07-05Semantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. Response: The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply.In 'Context and Scope':
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest Group
Solar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice Chair | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | TCG coordination is fine with this Proposed Recommendation because has gone a thorough review by TCG and community (twice), answered the comments and is accompanied by a proper set of serializations, validators and tools, and updates a central component of the IVOA architecture using the VO-DML standardised approach. The TCG review and vote has been closed, the document is fine to be pushed further along the REC path to Exec evaluation. This will happen as soon as the Coordinates DM will reach the same stage given the direct dependency of Measurements DM on it. -- JanetEvans, MarcoMolinaro - 2022-07-15 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Applications Working Groupvery minor commentsPrevious version: : 0.x if it lead to nothing from my validator in http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VODML/20180519/IVOA-v1.0.vo-dml.xml tag <identifier></identifier> <uri> </uri> are required before <title>IVOA Reference Types Data Model ala VO-URP</title> Data Access Layer Working GroupA couple of minor comments only, the standard looks good otherwise
Data Model Working GroupBeing closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19Grid & Web Services Working GroupGiven the answer to the Semantic WG, I do not have any particular comment on this standard. -- GiulianoTaffoni - 2022-06-27Registry Working GroupNo particular comment on this standard. -- RenaudSavalle - 2022-07-05Semantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. Response: The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply.In 'Context and Scope':
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest Group
Solar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working Groupvery minor commentsPrevious version: : 0.x if it lead to nothing from my validator in http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VODML/20180519/IVOA-v1.0.vo-dml.xml tag <identifier></identifier> <uri> </uri> are required before <title>IVOA Reference Types Data Model ala VO-URP</title> Data Access Layer Working GroupA couple of minor comments only, the standard looks good otherwise
Data Model Working GroupBeing closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19Grid & Web Services Working GroupGiven the answer to the Semantic WG, I do not have any particular comment on this standard. -- GiulianoTaffoni - 2022-06-27Registry Working GroupNo particular comment on this standard. -- RenaudSavalle - 2022-07-05Semantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. Response: The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply.In 'Context and Scope':
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest Group
Solar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working Groupvery minor commentsPrevious version: : 0.x if it lead to nothing from my validator in http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VODML/20180519/IVOA-v1.0.vo-dml.xml tag <identifier></identifier> <uri> </uri> are required before <title>IVOA Reference Types Data Model ala VO-URP</title> Data Access Layer Working GroupA couple of minor comments only, the standard looks good otherwise
Data Model Working GroupBeing closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19Grid & Web Services Working GroupGiven the answer to the Semantic WG, I do not have any particular comment on this standard. -- GiulianoTaffoni - 2022-06-27Registry Working GroupNo particular comment on this standard. -- RenaudSavalle - 2022-07-05Semantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. Response: The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply.In 'Context and Scope':
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest Group
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Deleted: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Solar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working Groupvery minor commentsPrevious version: : 0.x if it lead to nothing from my validator in http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VODML/20180519/IVOA-v1.0.vo-dml.xml tag <identifier></identifier> <uri> </uri> are required before <title>IVOA Reference Types Data Model ala VO-URP</title> Data Access Layer Working GroupA couple of minor comments only, the standard looks good otherwise
Data Model Working GroupBeing closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19Grid & Web Services Working GroupGiven the answer to the Semantic WG, I do not have any particular comment on this standard. -- GiulianoTaffoni - 2022-06-27Registry Working GroupNo particular comment on this standard. -- RenaudSavalle - 2022-07-05Semantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. Response: The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply.In 'Context and Scope':
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest Group
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Solar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working Groupvery minor commentsPrevious version: : 0.x if it lead to nothing from my validator in http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VODML/20180519/IVOA-v1.0.vo-dml.xml tag <identifier></identifier> <uri> </uri> are required before <title>IVOA Reference Types Data Model ala VO-URP</title> Data Access Layer Working GroupA couple of minor comments only, the standard looks good otherwise
Data Model Working GroupBeing closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19Grid & Web Services Working GroupGiven the answer to the Semantic WG, I do not have any particular comment on this standard. -- GiulianoTaffoni - 2022-06-27Registry Working GroupNo particular comment on this standard. -- RenaudSavalle - 2022-07-05Semantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. Response: The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply.In 'Context and Scope':
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest Group
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Response:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Solar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working Groupvery minor commentsPrevious version: : 0.x if it lead to nothing from my validator in http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VODML/20180519/IVOA-v1.0.vo-dml.xml tag <identifier></identifier> <uri> </uri> are required before <title>IVOA Reference Types Data Model ala VO-URP</title> Data Access Layer Working GroupA couple of minor comments only, the standard looks good otherwise
Data Model Working GroupBeing closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19Grid & Web Services Working GroupGiven the answer to the Semantic WG, I do not have any particular comment on this standard. -- GiulianoTaffoni - 2022-06-27Registry Working Group | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | No particular comment on this standard. -- RenaudSavalle - 2022-07-05 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Semantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. Response: The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply.In 'Context and Scope':
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest Group
Solar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working Groupvery minor commentsPrevious version: : 0.x if it lead to nothing from my validator in http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VODML/20180519/IVOA-v1.0.vo-dml.xml tag <identifier></identifier> <uri> </uri> are required before <title>IVOA Reference Types Data Model ala VO-URP</title> Data Access Layer Working GroupA couple of minor comments only, the standard looks good otherwise
Data Model Working GroupBeing closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19Grid & Web Services Working GroupGiven the answer to the Semantic WG, I do not have any particular comment on this standard. -- GiulianoTaffoni - 2022-06-27Registry Working GroupSemantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. Response: The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply.In 'Context and Scope':
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Solar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | very minor comments Previous version: : 0.x if it lead to nothing in the imported models https://github.com/ivoa-std/CoordinateDM/blob/master/vo-dml/Coords-v1.0.vo-dml.html do you mean ? https://github.com/ivoa-std/CoordinateDM/blob/master/vo-dml/Coords-v1.0.vo-dml.xml and the url started with file:// same with http://volute.g-vo.org/svn/trunk/projects/dm/vo-dml/models/ivoa/vo-dml/IVOA-v1.0.html from my validator in http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VODML/20180519/IVOA-v1.0.vo-dml.xml tag <identifier></identifier> <uri> </uri> are required before <title>IVOA Reference Types Data Model ala VO-URP</title> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | very minor comments Previous version: : 0.x if it lead to nothing from my validator in http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VODML/20180519/IVOA-v1.0.vo-dml.xml tag <identifier></identifier> <uri> </uri> are required before <title>IVOA Reference Types Data Model ala VO-URP</title> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Data Access Layer Working GroupA couple of minor comments only, the standard looks good otherwise
Data Model Working GroupBeing closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19Grid & Web Services Working GroupGiven the answer to the Semantic WG, I do not have any particular comment on this standard. -- GiulianoTaffoni - 2022-06-27Registry Working GroupSemantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. Response: The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply.In 'Context and Scope':
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest GroupSolar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | very minor comments Previous version: : 0.x if it lead to nothing in the imported models https://github.com/ivoa-std/CoordinateDM/blob/master/vo-dml/Coords-v1.0.vo-dml.html do you mean ? https://github.com/ivoa-std/CoordinateDM/blob/master/vo-dml/Coords-v1.0.vo-dml.xml and the url started with file:// same with http://volute.g-vo.org/svn/trunk/projects/dm/vo-dml/models/ivoa/vo-dml/IVOA-v1.0.html from my validator in http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VODML/20180519/IVOA-v1.0.vo-dml.xml tag <identifier></identifier> <uri> </uri> are required before <title>IVOA Reference Types Data Model ala VO-URP</title> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Data Access Layer Working GroupA couple of minor comments only, the standard looks good otherwise
Data Model Working GroupBeing closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19Grid & Web Services Working GroupGiven the answer to the Semantic WG, I do not have any particular comment on this standard. -- GiulianoTaffoni - 2022-06-27Registry Working GroupSemantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. Response: The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply.In 'Context and Scope':
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest GroupSolar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working GroupData Access Layer Working GroupA couple of minor comments only, the standard looks good otherwise
Data Model Working GroupBeing closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19Grid & Web Services Working Group | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | Given the answer to the Semantic WG, I do not have any particular comment on this standard. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Given the answer to the Semantic WG, I do not have any particular comment on this standard. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
-- GiulianoTaffoni - 2022-06-27
Registry Working GroupSemantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. Response: The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply.In 'Context and Scope':
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest GroupSolar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working GroupData Access Layer Working GroupA couple of minor comments only, the standard looks good otherwise
Data Model Working GroupBeing closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19Grid & Web Services Working Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Given the answer to the Semantic WG, I do not have any particular comment on this standard.
-- GiulianoTaffoni - 2022-06-27
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Registry Working GroupSemantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. Response: The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply.In 'Context and Scope':
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest GroupSolar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working GroupData Access Layer Working GroupA couple of minor comments only, the standard looks good otherwise
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-06-22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-06-22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
-- JamesDempsey - 2022-05-23
Data Model Working GroupBeing closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19Grid & Web Services Working GroupRegistry Working GroupSemantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. Response: The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply.In 'Context and Scope':
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest GroupSolar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working GroupData Access Layer Working GroupA couple of minor comments only, the standard looks good otherwise
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
-- JamesDempsey - 2022-05-23
Data Model Working GroupBeing closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19Grid & Web Services Working GroupRegistry Working GroupSemantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. Response: The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply.In 'Context and Scope':
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest GroupSolar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working GroupData Access Layer Working GroupA couple of minor comments only, the standard looks good otherwise | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Data Model Working GroupBeing closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19Grid & Web Services Working GroupRegistry Working GroupSemantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. Response: The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply.In 'Context and Scope':
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest GroupSolar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working GroupData Access Layer Working Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | A couple of minor comments only, the standard looks good otherwise
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Data Model Working GroupBeing closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19Grid & Web Services Working GroupRegistry Working GroupSemantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. Response: The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply.In 'Context and Scope':
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest GroupSolar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working GroupData Access Layer Working GroupData Model Working Group | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Being closely involved in the different steps of the model construction, I have no specific remarks to make here. -- LaurentMichel - 2022-05-19 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Grid & Web Services Working GroupRegistry Working GroupSemantics Working GroupBy reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | Response: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Response: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply. In 'Context and Scope':
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest GroupSolar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Response: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | Exactly. The pixel domain describes the image cells (which are outside of the Measurement scope, and handled by the Coordinates model). The image cell VALUE however, is within the Measurement scope. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Exactly. The pixel domain describes the image cells (which are outside of the Measurement scope, and handled by the Coordinates model). The image cell VALUE however, is within the Measurement scope. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | I think this may be more clear after reading the document. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | I think this may be more clear after reading the document. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | It simply means that a 1-dimensional measure are expected to have a 1D error (eg Symmetrical, Bounds1D).. not a 2D (Ellipse) or 3D (Ellipsoid). The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | It simply means that a 1-dimensional measure are expected to have a 1D error (eg Symmetrical, Bounds1D).. not a 2D (Ellipse) or 3D (Ellipsoid). The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Typos:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
-- AnneRaugh - 2022-04-20
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working GroupData Access Layer Working GroupData Model Working GroupGrid & Web Services Working GroupRegistry Working GroupSemantics Working Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | By reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | By reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | For example: may I use this DM to describe a set of measurements made in the case of a laboratory astrophysics experience? In this case all the coordinates part is useless and I will need something to describe the experimental set (conditions, instruments). This part is missing. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Response: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | The Measurement model is a very generic base model, and may be used wherever the concepts apply. In 'Context and Scope':
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Also if I assume that this DM is proposed only for phenomena observed up in the sky, how can we deal with measured spectral line (we have the case in the ongoing LineTAP working draft): we don’t care very much about the coordinates of the measured line, but we need to know the energy states and the emitting element. We cannot describe this measurement with this proposed DM model. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Response: We do not expect this model to serve all possible cases, it is a Version 1. For example, the DM workshop had cases where MANGO is looking into how to support Quality flags. The error model is one area where we expect a lot of growth in the future as we support more complex cases. If LineTAP has a case which 'should' be supported by this model, we can take it as a project to fold into an update -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Could you please explain what is the scope and the validity/limitation domain for this recoomandation? What is this for? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest GroupSolar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Response: Exactly. The pixel domain describes the image cells (which are outside of the Measurement scope, and handled by the Coordinates model). The image cell VALUE however, is within the Measurement scope. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Response:
I think this may be more clear after reading the document.
It simply means that a 1-dimensional measure are expected to have a 1D error (eg Symmetrical, Bounds1D).. not a 2D (Ellipse) or 3D (Ellipsoid). The question of "Angstrom" vs "AU" is a unit-compatibility one, which is outside the scope of this model. We expect the units associated with any given Measure are compatible with the domain, and the client/consumer is responsible for verifying this. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Typos:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Response: Corrected.. -- MarkCresitelloDittmar - 2022-05-18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
-- AnneRaugh - 2022-04-20
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working GroupData Access Layer Working GroupData Model Working GroupGrid & Web Services Working GroupRegistry Working GroupSemantics Working Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | By reading the proposed recommendation I (Carlo writing) am not sure about the scope of the document. Does it concern only astro-objects (galaxies, planets, stars) or also phenomenon? It is not clearly stated. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | For example: may I use this DM to describe a set of measurements made in the case of a laboratory astrophysics experience? In this case all the coordinates part is useless and I will need something to describe the experimental set (conditions, instruments). This part is missing. Also if I assume that this DM is proposed only for phenomena observed up in the sky, how can we deal with measured spectral line (we have the case in the ongoing LineTAP working draft): we don’t care very much about the coordinates of the measured line, but we need to know the energy states and the emitting element. We cannot describe this measurement with this proposed DM model. Could you please explain what is the scope and the validity/limitation domain for this recoomandation? What is this for? Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Education Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupRadioastronomy Interest GroupSolar System Interest GroupPoints of confusion for me:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Deleted: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Typos:
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications 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 GroupRadioastronomy Interest GroupSolar System Interest Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Points of confusion for me:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes the following concepts:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
Serializations:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2020-10-10 - 2020-12-07 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2022-02-24 - 2022-04-10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment.
IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.
TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications 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 GroupRadioastronomy Interest GroupSolar System Interest GroupTheory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes the following concepts:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
Serializations:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
UsageIn the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. These include:
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?).
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2020-10-10 - 2020-12-07WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications 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 GroupRadioastronomy Interest GroupSolar System Interest GroupTheory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | STC2:Meas Proposed Recommendation: Request for Comments | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | STC2:Meas Proposed Recommendation: Request for Comments | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Deleted: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | WATCHOUT : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | NOTICE : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rationale for a second RFC round:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | Summary | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Summary | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Version 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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes the following concepts:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | Implementation Requirements | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | Serializations:
Software:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Serializations:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
Software:A detailed study was performed to determine the compatibility of the Meas/Coords data models to the AstroPy package, a popular Python package with intensive support for Space and Time coordinates.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
Validators | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
Validators | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Usage | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | Links with Coords | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | In the period since the close of the RFC2 review, a great deal of effort has been made to illustrate the usability of the Meas/Coords models in the context of real world scenarios. Each have confirmed the usability of the data models, and illustrate how annotating data to models can facilitate interoperability. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | These include:
Links with Coords | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 page
Comments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The way to exercise that is to have a few data centers annotate a representative part of their tables; I'm not saying they need to be able to precisely annotate everything -- if it's enough for the "automatically plot error bars" use case, I'd say that's a success on which we can build. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
On the changes since PR1, the recent addition "The current model assumes Gaussian distributions with shapes defined at the 68% confidence level" we really shouldn't do -- it's a lot more than we can confidently claim about most of our data holdings. At this point, I think we can only say "what we're doing here are rough error bars". Going for actual distributions is something for when we know what we'll do with them, and an "automatic error propagation" use case, to me, is a bit ambitious when we can't even plot error bars at this time. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adding to point (4) of the original RFC comments -- that we shouldn't have Time, Position, Velocity, ProperMotion, and Polarization as separate classes, but instead distinguish physics by UCD as elsewhere in the VO -- people have said that's a serialisation issue; well, it's not in our current plans, where the DM types would directly sit on VOTable elements. This means that both UCD and DM type would do about the same thing. Let's avoid that. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Since I can't make out a use case for why something figuring out distributions would actually need to know physics, my preference would be to keep the whole notion outside of measurements in the first place. If such a use case were identified, I'd say adding a UCD attribute would be ok, with the understanding that some magic in our VOTable mapping would make that the UCD of the annotated FIELD, PARAM, or GROUP. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
-- MarkusDemleitner - 2020-11-25
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2020-10-10 - 2020-12-07WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications 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 GroupRadioastronomy Interest GroupSolar System Interest GroupTheory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
STC2:Meas Proposed Recommendation: Request for CommentsWATCHOUT : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?). The way to exercise that is to have a few data centers annotate a representative part of their tables; I'm not saying they need to be able to precisely annotate everything -- if it's enough for the "automatically plot error bars" use case, I'd say that's a success on which we can build. On the changes since PR1, the recent addition "The current model assumes Gaussian distributions with shapes defined at the 68% confidence level" we really shouldn't do -- it's a lot more than we can confidently claim about most of our data holdings. At this point, I think we can only say "what we're doing here are rough error bars". Going for actual distributions is something for when we know what we'll do with them, and an "automatic error propagation" use case, to me, is a bit ambitious when we can't even plot error bars at this time. Adding to point (4) of the original RFC comments -- that we shouldn't have Time, Position, Velocity, ProperMotion, and Polarization as separate classes, but instead distinguish physics by UCD as elsewhere in the VO -- people have said that's a serialisation issue; well, it's not in our current plans, where the DM types would directly sit on VOTable elements. This means that both UCD and DM type would do about the same thing. Let's avoid that. Since I can't make out a use case for why something figuring out distributions would actually need to know physics, my preference would be to keep the whole notion outside of measurements in the first place. If such a use case were identified, I'd say adding a UCD attribute would be ok, with the understanding that some magic in our VOTable mapping would make that the UCD of the annotated FIELD, PARAM, or GROUP. -- MarkusDemleitner - 2020-11-25Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2020-10-10 - 2020-12-07WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working GroupData Access Layer Working GroupData Model Working GroupGrid & Web Services Working GroupRegistry Working GroupSemantics Working GroupData Curation & Preservation Interest Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | Education Interest Group | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Education Interest Group | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Knowledge Discovery Interest Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Radioastronomy Interest Group | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Solar System Interest GroupTheory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
STC2:Meas Proposed Recommendation: Request for CommentsWATCHOUT : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
Comments by Markus DemleitnerThe introduction and points (1), (4), (7), (11) from my RFC 1 comments I'd still retain, and I essentially stand by the summary, which I'd update to: I'd make the model a lot smaller, thus creating space we'll need once we tackle strict errors (i.e., explicit distributions) in earnest one day. We ought to have, perhaps NaiveMeasuremetnt (a pseudo-distribution saying "value is something like an expectation or perhaps a median, and error is something like a first moment or something like that), and perhaps AsymmetricNaiveMeasure. I'm not even convinced we have credible use cases for statError and sysError. And if we want correlations, these should be explicit as relations between, I guess, measurements (or their parameters?). The way to exercise that is to have a few data centers annotate a representative part of their tables; I'm not saying they need to be able to precisely annotate everything -- if it's enough for the "automatically plot error bars" use case, I'd say that's a success on which we can build. On the changes since PR1, the recent addition "The current model assumes Gaussian distributions with shapes defined at the 68% confidence level" we really shouldn't do -- it's a lot more than we can confidently claim about most of our data holdings. At this point, I think we can only say "what we're doing here are rough error bars". Going for actual distributions is something for when we know what we'll do with them, and an "automatic error propagation" use case, to me, is a bit ambitious when we can't even plot error bars at this time. Adding to point (4) of the original RFC comments -- that we shouldn't have Time, Position, Velocity, ProperMotion, and Polarization as separate classes, but instead distinguish physics by UCD as elsewhere in the VO -- people have said that's a serialisation issue; well, it's not in our current plans, where the DM types would directly sit on VOTable elements. This means that both UCD and DM type would do about the same thing. Let's avoid that. Since I can't make out a use case for why something figuring out distributions would actually need to know physics, my preference would be to keep the whole notion outside of measurements in the first place. If such a use case were identified, I'd say adding a UCD attribute would be ok, with the understanding that some magic in our VOTable mapping would make that the UCD of the annotated FIELD, PARAM, or GROUP. -- MarkusDemleitner - 2020-11-25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2020-10-10 - 2020-12-07WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications 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 GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
STC2:Meas Proposed Recommendation: Request for Comments | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
WATCHOUT : This RFC page replaces RFC#1 Rationale for a second RFC round:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: TCG_start_date - TCG_end_date | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Comments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2020-10-26 - 2020-12-07 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2020-10-10 - 2020-12-07 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment.
IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.
TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications 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 GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|
STC2:Meas Proposed Recommendation: Request for CommentsSummaryVersion 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 covers the description of measured or determined astronomical data, and includes 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.
Serializations:
Software:
ValidatorsAs noted above, the serializations may be validated to various degrees using the corresponding schema
Links with CoordsThe Measurement model is heavily dependent on the Coordinates model (also in RFC) for its core elements. Information about its relation to the Coordinates model, and how the requirements are distributed can be found on the STC2 pageComments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: TCG_start_date - TCG_end_dateWG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory.TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications 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 GroupOperationsStandards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : Vote_start_date - Vote_end_dateIf 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.
<!--</p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME =<span class="WYSIWYG_PROTECTED"> TWikiAdminGroup</span> </li> </ul></li> </ul>--> <--
|