Spectrum Data Model RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Spectrum Data Model 1.01 Proposed Recommendation. Review period: 16 May 2007 to 12 Jun 2007 (still open) 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. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
Concept My new proposal Your proposal Energy flux vs energy phot.flux.density;em.energy phot.flux.density;em.energy Number flux vs energy phot.flux.density;em.energy,phys.photon phot.flux.density;em.energy or phot.flux.number;em.energy Flux density (vs wl) phot.flux.density;em.wl phot.flux.density;em.wl Polarized flux (vs wl) phot.flux.density;em.wl,phys.polarization phot.flux.density;em.wl Flux density (vs wl) phot.flux.density;em.wl phot.flux.density;em.wl Source intensity phys.luminosity; em.wl,phys.angArea phot.flux.density;em.wl Flux density phot.flux.density phot.flux.density Brightness temperature phot.flux.density; phys.temperature phot.flux.density Aperture area phys.area phys.area Effective area phys.area;phys.transmission phys.area Continuum-only vs wl phot.flux.density;em.wl,spect.continuum phot.flux.density,spect.continuum Continuum-only vs freq phot.flux.density;em.freq,spect.continuum phot.flux.density,spect.continuumCan you (1) explain what is wrong with my proposals (ok the first one uses a so-far-nonexistent UCD I agree, the others seem legal to me) and (2) provide alternatives that do not lose these distinctions? I have a few other issues with your list vs mine: Why is src.var.amplitude;arith.ratio not acceptable for the variability as fraction of mean? To say that this should have the same UCD as the actual amplitude is losing valuable discriminatory power. What is wrong with meta.ucd and meta.unit for e.g. SpatialAxis.ucd, unit? With e.g. StatError you suggest "stat.error;em" while I suggested "stat.error;em.wl" or "stat.error;em.freq" etc. Isn't it better to specify here, so that software can use the UCD to tell which is being given? Why don't you like: em.wl;obs.atmos for Air Wavelength? I would really like to be able to distinguish it from vacuum wavelength. How can I tell the client (user) that air wavelengths are being used? - thanks, Jonathan
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
* JonathanMcDowell -23 Jun 2007 Andrea, I guess I don't feel that phot.flux.density;em.wl,stat.max (and similar) are 'cumbersome' - I find them much easier to understand than extra custom-crafted UCDs like ..perWave. I feel that em.wl, em.freq, etc. are naturally adjectives as well as nouns; since they are 'Q' and not 'P', what I have done seems perfectly legal, and I guess I would like a reason based on the standard that it's not right, rather than just 'Andrea doesn't like it'... I accept the proposal to add stat.error.lower, stat.error.upper, em.wl.air as new UCDs. But I'm a bit concerned that you give me all this input now at/after the end of the RFC period, we were hoping to get approval for Spectrum at the July 15 exec - if we need to add all these new UCDs, does this mean we have to wait for a new update to the words list to be approved before Spectrum can go to approval? (Plus, of course, the time required for all the implementers to change their implementation, since we've published essentially the current list of Spectrum UCDs over a year ago and everyone is using them - this mostly is important for the Flux.Value cases). For polarized flux: yes, a data provider could choose to separate it out into (total flux vs wavelength) and (fraction of polarized flux vs wavelength), but I believe it's fairly common (certainly in AGN work) to show the product of these two things as the 'polarized flux', and I want a UCD for that. Since phys.polarization is an 'E' word, I believe that phot.flux.density;em.wl,phys.polarization is a reasonably unambiguous UCD for this? For em.*: in the context of the doc, this is a shorthand for (EITHER em.wl OR em.freq OR em.energy). - Jonathan | |||||||
Comments from the Working Group Chairs and Interest Group ChairsChairs should add their comments under their name.Marc Allen (Applications WG)Christophe Arviset (TCG vice Chair)Matthew Graham (Grid & Web Services WG)Bob Hanisch (Data Curation & Preservation IG)Gerard Lemson (Theory IG)Mireille Louys (Data Models WG)Keith Noddle (Data Access Layer WG)Francois Ochsenbein (VOTable WG)Pedro Osuna (VOQL WG)Ray Plante (Resource Registry WG)Andrea Priete-Martinez (Semantics WG)Roy Williams (VOEvent WG)<--
|