I think a pol_states field with a Char.polAxis.enumeration UType would be the right addition. However, polarization is not always measured as direct Stokes parameters. Should we have an enumeration of the Stokes parameters present, of non-Stokes parameters, or of deducible Stokes parameters?
-- JuanDeDiosSantanderVela - 07 Mar 2011
I agree, for example LL and RR data are not a Stokes type. Would it be simple to adopt Juan's solution, with an enumeration based on the FITS polarization axes labels (by code, not by number, i.e.
I Q U V RR LL RL LR XX Y Y XY Y X POLI POLA UNDEF (see http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/Polarization/ which incidentally needs updating in the light of recent comments)?
-- AnitaRichards - 08 Mar 2011
I fully agree with Juan De and Anita there. But if we don't want this | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | pol_staes parameter to be mandatory we will convey minimal information with the o_ucd field. this one doesn't allow to give the list however, only the polarization "style". | |||||||
> > | pol_states parameter to be mandatory we will convey minimal information with the o_ucd field. This one doesn't allow to give the full list however, but only the polarization "style". | |||||||
-- FrancoisBonnarel - 15 mar 2011 | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | To be more precise: - if we want to use the mandatory fields only o_ucd can be used to specify that phot.flux.density is completed by phys.polarization or phys.polarization.* - this is interesting for data discovery, but only the pol_states optional field can give us the full list of available polarization states in the data set. -- FrancoisBonnarel - 16 mar 2011 | |||||||
<--
|