Difference: PhotDM10RFC (9 vs. 10)

Revision 102013-07-04 - JesusSalgado

Changed:
<
<

PhotDM-1.0 Proposed Recommendation: RFC period

>
>

Photometry DM RFC

 
Changed:
<
<		This document serves as the RFC center for the Proposed
>
>		This document will act as RFC centre for the Photometry DM http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/PHOTDM/
 
Changed:
<
<		Recommendation entitled "IVOA Photometry DM, Version 1.0".
>
>		This is the second RFC process for this DM. Previous RFC page can still be found at: http://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/PhotDM10RFCOLD
 
Changed:
<
<		The latest version of PhotDM:
>
>		Please notice this version is an updated version of the previous Photometry DM with some changes in the UML but maintaining the utypes as in the
 
Changed:
<
<
>
>		current way. A parallel PhotDM draft is being prepared in parallel with the VO-DML utypes approach.
Deleted:
<
<		Discussion page is at:
 
Changed:
<
<
>
>		In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment.
Deleted:
<
<		where some auxiliary documents can be found.
 
Changed:
<
<

Reference Interoperable Implementations

>
>		Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the dm@ivoa.net. However, please be sure to enter your initial comments here for full consideration in any future revisions of this document.
Added:
>
>

Implementation details

 
  • VOSpec (ESAVO) (client)
  • Filter Profile Service (SVO) (Server + Client)
  • Catalogs with Photometry Data (CDS) (Server)
Added:
>
>

RFC Review Period: 04 July 2013 - 04 August 2013

Comments from the IVOA Community during RFC period:

TCG Review Period: 05 August 2013 - 10 September 2013

Comments from TCG member during the TCG Review Period:

 
Changed:
<
<

RFC Review Period: 05 June 2012 - 05 July 2012 (closed)

>
>		WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any and formally indicate if they approve or not the Standard.
 
Changed:
<
<

TCG Review Period: 05 July 2012 - 05 September 2012

>
>		IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, although their inputs are not compulsory.
Deleted:
<
<

Comments from the IVOA Community during RFC period: 05 June 2012 - 05 July 2012

 

Comments from TCG member during the TCG Review Period: 05 July 2012 - 05 September 2012

WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any and formally indicate if they approve or not the Standard.

IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, although their inputs are not compulsory.

Changed:
<
<

TCG Chair & Vice Chair ( _Christophe Arviset, Séverin Gaudet)

>
>

TCG Chair & Vice Chair ( _Séverin Gaudet, Matthew Graham)

Applications Working Group ( _Mark Taylor, Pierre Fernique)

Data Access Layer Working Group ( Patrick Dowler, Francois Bonnarel)

Deleted:
<
<

Applications Working Group ( _Mark Taylor)

As Gretchen points out, there are some questions raised by Appendix C.2. TAP services to be marked up in such a way should I think use the TAPRegExt <dataModel> element, but I'm not sure about Cone Search.

The response curve in the example table in Appendix C.1 seems to have all its transmission values as zero - is that a mistake?

Given consideration of those points, I approve.

-- MarkTaylor - 05 Jul 2012

Agree with first point. Tap services could make use of the datamodel element. As commented in the registry section, details on how to register cone search services can be considered out of the scope of the DM itself, so they should be discussed in another context.

About second point, unfortunately the example has been taken from a real example and cut to minimize the size (the first element are zero). The example will be modified to get transmission numbers different than zero.

JesusSalgado - September 5, 2012

Data Access Layer Working Group ( Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick))

 

Data Model Working Group ( _Jesus Salgado, Omar Laurino)

Changed:
<
<
>
>

Grid & Web Services Working Group ( Andre Schaaff, Andreas Wicenec)

Deleted:
<
<

Grid & Web Services Working Group ( Andreas Wicenec, Andre Schaaff)

 

Registry Working Group ( _Gretchen Greene, Pierre Le Sidaner)

Changed:
<
<		 Appendix C.2 describes using a new capability type for Cone Search, i.e. Photometry. This is confusing to me, in the sense that the capability is more what we would refer to as the standard functional capability, e.g. cone, sia, ssa, sla, tap, etc. It is an interesting concept you are defining, i.e. how to describe data model implementation contained in a specifc service capability. I'm looking further to try to understand this in the context of registry schema. Currently i do not see the metadata mapping which would demonstrate how this would comply. Perhaps you had a specific example to explain further?

GretchenGreene - July 3, 2012

>
>

Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)

Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Francoise Genova)

Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )

Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner)

Time Domain Interest Group (John Swinbank, Mike Fitzpatrick)

Deleted:
<
<		This was a proposal done, mainly, by our CDS colleagues in order to publish future Cone Searches with the extra metadata information. I agree this should be more discussed in the registry context and, as mentioned, the services should be registered using a standard registry extension (e.g. TAPRegExt for tap services). As this is out of the scope of the DM itself, I will remove some details on how to register these services. This could be added to the related IVOA note in coordination with the Registry group

JesusSalgado - September 5, 2012

Semantics Working Group ( _Sebastien Derriere, Norman Gray)

VOEvent Working Group ( _Matthew Graham, John Swinbank)

Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi)

Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( Giuseppe Longo)

Theory Interest Group ( _Herve Wozniak, Franck Le Petit)

The document is clear and comprehensive.

I approve the document.

-- FranckLePetit - 2012-09-06

Standards and Processes Committee ( Francoise Genova) 


<--  
-->
 
View topic | History: r23 < r22 < r21 < r20 | More topic actions...
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by Perl This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platformCopyright © 2008-2025 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback