Difference: PhotDM10RFC (5 vs. 6)

Revision 62012-07-05 - MarkTaylor

 

PhotDM-1.0 Proposed Recommendation: RFC period

This document serves as the RFC center for the Proposed

Recommendation entitled "IVOA Photometry DM, Version 1.0".

The latest version of PhotDM:

Discussion page is at:

where some auxiliary documents can be found.

Reference Interoperable Implementations

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

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

TCG Review Period: 05 July 2012 - 05 September 2012

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.

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

Changed:
<
<

Applications Working Group (Mark Taylor, Enrique Solano)

>
>

Applications Working Group (Mark Taylor)

 
Added:
>
>		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

 

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

Data Model Working Group (Jesus Salgado, Omar Laurino)

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

Registry Working Group (Gretchen Greene, Pierre Le Sidaner)

Added:
>
>		 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 (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)

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