SSA v1.1 Erratum 2: Invalid UCDs required in specification 1.0Author: Mireille Louys Date last changed: 2022-01-17 | |||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||
< < | Date accepted: - | ||||||||||||||||
> > | Date accepted: 2022-03-08 | ||||||||||||||||
Github Issue: SSA Issue #1
RationaleAppendix D: SSA Data Model Summary, PDF page 64, lists the data model elements supported by the SSA specification with Utypes and UCDs. Some of the UCDs proposed lead to ambiguous interpretation and do not follow the combination rules of the UCD specification. Specifically, instr.fov must be secondary. Hence, the UCDs for the fields with utypes
Erratum ContentThis erratum makes the following changes in the table P. 64:
Impact AssessmentSSAP clients do not identify fields by UCDs and hence are unaffected by this change. Clients relying on UCDs to determine how to treat individual columns will now be able to gain some basic understanding of the affected columns, which they could not before (as the UCDs were invalid and hence meaningless). Most importantly, valid SSAP services will raise fewer errors in UCD validation. |
SSA v1.1 Erratum 2: Invalid UCDs required in specification 1.0Author: Mireille Louys Date last changed: 2022-01-17 Date accepted: - Github Issue: SSA Issue #1RationaleAppendix D: SSA Data Model Summary, PDF page 64, lists the data model elements supported by the SSA specification with Utypes and UCDs. | |||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||
< < | Some of the UCDs proposed lead to ambiguous interpretation and do not follow the combination rules of the UCD specification. Specifically, instr.fov must be secondary. Hence, the UCDs for the fields with utypes | ||||||||||||||||
> > | Some of the UCDs proposed lead to ambiguous interpretation and do not follow the combination rules of the UCD specification. Specifically, instr.fov must be secondary. Hence, the UCDs for the fields with utypes | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||
Deleted: | |||||||||||||||||
< < | |||||||||||||||||
as prescribed by SSAP 1.1 are invalid and need to be repaired.
This erratum provides valid UCDs, which not only have proper semantics but also enable UCD-aware clients to determine the nature of the fields if they do not know the SSAP data model.
Erratum ContentThis erratum makes the following changes in the table P. 64:
Impact AssessmentSSAP clients do not identify fields by UCDs and hence are unaffected by this change. Clients relying on UCDs to determine how to treat individual columns will now be able to gain some basic understanding of the affected columns, which they could not before (as the UCDs were invalid and hence meaningless). Most importantly, valid SSAP services will raise fewer errors in UCD validation. | |||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||
< < | Topic_action | ||||||||||||||||
> > | |||||||||||||||||
Deleted: | |||||||||||||||||
< < |
UCDList EN-1.4 defines /instr.fov/ as
S | instr.fov | Field of view
This definition is fuzzy, and can be clarified and replaced by
|
SSA v1.1 Erratum 2: Invalid UCDs required in specification 1.0Author: Mireille Louys Date last changed: 2022-01-17 Date accepted: - | |||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||
< < | Issue: SSA Issue #1 | ||||||||||||||||
> > | Github Issue: SSA Issue #1 | ||||||||||||||||
Rationale | |||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||
< < | Appendix D: SSA Data Model Summary p.64 lists the data model elements supported by this specification with Utypes and UCDs. | ||||||||||||||||
> > | Appendix D: SSA Data Model Summary, PDF page 64, lists the data model elements supported by the SSA specification with Utypes and UCDs. | ||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||
< < | Some of the UCDs proposed lead to ambiguous interpretation and do not strictly follow the combination rules proposed in the UCD specification,namely intsr.fov | ||||||||||||||||
> > | Some of the UCDs proposed lead to ambiguous interpretation and do not follow the combination rules of the UCD specification. Specifically, instr.fov must be secondary. Hence, the UCDs for the fields with utypes | ||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||
< < | UCD requires instr.fov to be secondary. Hence, the UCDs for the fields with utypes
Char.SpatialAxis.Coverage.Bounds.Extent, Char.SpatialAxis.Coverage.Support.Area, Char.SpatialAxis.Coverage.Support.Extent | ||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||
as prescribed by SSAP 1.1 are invalid and need to be repaired. This erratum provides valid UCDs, which not only have proper semantics but also enable UCD-aware clients to determine the nature of the fields if they do not know the SSAP data model. | |||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||
< < | Erratum_Content | ||||||||||||||||
> > | Erratum Content | ||||||||||||||||
This erratum makes the following changes in the table P. 64:
Impact AssessmentSSAP clients do not identify fields by UCDs and hence are unaffected by this change. | |||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||
< < | Clients relying on UCDs to determine how to treat individual columns will now be able to gain some basic understanding of the affected columns, which they could not before (as the UCDs were invalid and hence meaningless). | ||||||||||||||||
> > | Clients relying on UCDs to determine how to treat individual columns will now be able to gain some basic understanding of the affected columns, which they could not before (as the UCDs were invalid and hence meaningless). | ||||||||||||||||
Most importantly, valid SSAP services will raise fewer errors in UCD validation.
Topic_actionUCDList EN-1.4 defines /instr.fov/ as | |||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||
< < | S | instr.fov | Field of view | ||||||||||||||||
> > | S | instr.fov | Field of view | ||||||||||||||||
This definition is fuzzy, and can be clarified and replaced by
| |||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||
> > | |||||||||||||||||
for the next UCDList update UCDList1.5 . |
SSA v1.1 Erratum 2: Invalid UCDs required in specification 1.0Author: Mireille Louys Date last changed: 2022-01-17 Date accepted: - | |||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | Issue: SSA Issue #4 | ||||||||||||
> > | Issue: SSA Issue #1 | ||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | Rationale | ||||||||||||
> > | Rationale | ||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | There is confusion between the examples and the normative text of the standard as to whether the trailing separator should be included in the registered base URL for an SSA service. The last character of the base URL could be either a question mark '?' or an ampersand '&' depending on whether the service is defined with extra query parameters. It has been common practice to include the trailing separator in the registered base URL. However, clients should be prepared for missing delimiters as this has been ambiguous in the document for some time. | ||||||||||||
> > | Appendix D: SSA Data Model Summary p.64 lists the data model elements supported by this specification with Utypes and UCDs. | ||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | This erratum requires the trailing separator to be included in the registered URL and updates all text and examples to include it. | ||||||||||||
> > | Some of the UCDs proposed lead to ambiguous interpretation and do not strictly follow the combination rules proposed in the UCD specification,namely intsr.fov | ||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | Erratum Content | ||||||||||||
> > | UCD requires instr.fov to be secondary. Hence, the UCDs for the fields with utypes | ||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||
> > | Char.SpatialAxis.Coverage.Bounds.Extent, Char.SpatialAxis.Coverage.Support.Area, Char.SpatialAxis.Coverage.Support.Extent | ||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | This erratum makes the following changes: | ||||||||||||
> > | as prescribed by SSAP 1.1 are invalid and need to be repaired. | ||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | Section 3.2 Methods & Protocols | ||||||||||||
> > | This erratum provides valid UCDs, which not only have proper semantics but also enable UCD-aware clients to determine the nature of the fields if they do not know the SSAP data model. | ||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | change the example SSA query from | ||||||||||||
> > | Erratum_Content | ||||||||||||
Deleted: | |||||||||||||
< < | <Service.BaseURL>?VERSION=1.0&REQUEST=queryData<¶m=value…> | ||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | to <Service.BaseURL>VERSION=1.0&REQUEST=queryData<¶m=value…> | ||||||||||||
> > | This erratum makes the following changes in the table P. 64:
| ||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | Section 8.3.3 HTTP GET In table 2, change the URL component in the BaseURL from | ||||||||||||
> > | Impact Assessment | ||||||||||||
Deleted: | |||||||||||||
< < | http://host:port]/path[?[name[=value]{&name=[value]}]] | ||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | to | ||||||||||||
> > | SSAP clients do not identify fields by UCDs and hence are unaffected by this change. | ||||||||||||
Deleted: | |||||||||||||
< < | http://host[:port]/path?{name=[value]&} | ||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | This also fixes some unrelated errors in the original example. Section 8.10 Error Response and Other Unsuccessful Results In the example, change the baseURL from | ||||||||||||
> > | Clients relying on UCDs to determine how to treat individual columns will now be able to gain some basic understanding of the affected columns, which they could not before (as the UCDs were invalid and hence meaningless). | ||||||||||||
Deleted: | |||||||||||||
< < | <INFO name="baseUrl" value="http://webtest.aoc.nrao.edu/ivoa-dal"/> | ||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | to | ||||||||||||
> > | Most importantly, valid SSAP services will raise fewer errors in UCD validation. | ||||||||||||
Deleted: | |||||||||||||
< < | <INFO name="baseUrl" value="http://webtest.aoc.nrao.edu/ivoa-dal?"/> | ||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | Impact Assessment | ||||||||||||
> > | Topic_action | ||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | Currently, all but one registered SSA service includes a trailing separator in their registered base URL. However, clients should still expect some services to omit the trailing separator and we recommend they inspect the URL to determine if it is required. Likewise, validators should handle missing separators by reporting their absence but continuing validation. | ||||||||||||
> > | UCDList EN-1.4 defines /instr.fov/ as | ||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | |||||||||||||
> > | S | instr.fov | Field of view | ||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < | <--
| ||||||||||||
> > | This definition is fuzzy, and can be clarified and replaced by
|
SSA v1.1 Erratum 2: Invalid UCDs required in specification 1.0Author: Mireille Louys Date last changed: 2022-01-17 Date accepted: - Issue: SSA Issue #4RationaleThere is confusion between the examples and the normative text of the standard as to whether the trailing separator should be included in the registered base URL for an SSA service. The last character of the base URL could be either a question mark '?' or an ampersand '&' depending on whether the service is defined with extra query parameters. It has been common practice to include the trailing separator in the registered base URL. However, clients should be prepared for missing delimiters as this has been ambiguous in the document for some time. This erratum requires the trailing separator to be included in the registered URL and updates all text and examples to include it.Erratum ContentThis erratum makes the following changes: Section 3.2 Methods & Protocols change the example SSA query from<Service.BaseURL>?VERSION=1.0&REQUEST=queryData<¶m=value…> to <Service.BaseURL>VERSION=1.0&REQUEST=queryData<¶m=value…> Section 8.3.3 HTTP GET In table 2, change the URL component in the BaseURL from http://host:port]/path[?[name[=value]{&name=[value]}]] to http://host[:port]/path?{name=[value]&}This also fixes some unrelated errors in the original example. Section 8.10 Error Response and Other Unsuccessful Results In the example, change the baseURL from <INFO name="baseUrl" value="http://webtest.aoc.nrao.edu/ivoa-dal"/> to <INFO name="baseUrl" value="http://webtest.aoc.nrao.edu/ivoa-dal?"/> Impact AssessmentCurrently, all but one registered SSA service includes a trailing separator in their registered base URL. However, clients should still expect some services to omit the trailing separator and we recommend they inspect the URL to determine if it is required. Likewise, validators should handle missing separators by reporting their absence but continuing validation.<--
|