VOUnits 1.0 RFC | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Last phase update : | |||||||
> > | The VOUnits document is now an IVOA REC; please do not edit this page | |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | The previous PR document, VOUnits 1.0-20130724, and the associated grammar supporting the specification, have both been updated. See Dec2013VOUnitsRFC. Please check the changes and deliver your comments on this new Dec2013VOUnitsRFC page, to avoid any confusion between the previous and the new version. | |||||||
THE TEXT BELOW IS HISTORICAL, FOR REFERENCE ONLY. VOUnits 1.0-20130724 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from XXX. The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ . This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. Update, 2013-08-12: there has been fairly extensive discussion on the semantics@ivoa list, and there will probably be a further draft released semi-formally within a week or so; keep an eye on the semantics list if you're interested in this. Update, 2013-09-22: after more on-list discussion, there has been another out-of-cycle release; that is now at the document repository above. The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
|
META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" attr="" comment="updates for last TCG comments" date="1373537491" name="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" path="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" size="703448" user="MireilleLouys" version="1" |
---|---|
META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" attr="" comment="VOUnits PR 1.0-20130724" date="1374771024" name="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" path="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" size="872683" user="NormanGray" version="1" |
VOUnits 1.0 RFCLast phase update : The previous PR document, VOUnits 1.0-20130724, and the associated grammar supporting the specification, have both been updated. See Dec2013VOUnitsRFC. Please check the changes and deliver your comments on this new Dec2013VOUnitsRFC page, to avoid any confusion between the previous and the new version.THE TEXT BELOW IS HISTORICAL, FOR REFERENCE ONLY. VOUnits 1.0-20130724 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from XXX. The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ . This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. Update, 2013-08-12: there has been fairly extensive discussion on the semantics@ivoa list, and there will probably be a further draft released semi-formally within a week or so; keep an eye on the semantics list if you're interested in this. Update, 2013-09-22: after more on-list discussion, there has been another out-of-cycle release; that is now at the document repository above. The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | -- Approved PierreLeSidaner GretchenGreene - 2014-05-15 | |||||||
Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova )Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner ) | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | As I already said, the document is quite comprehensive. I think that is a good progress for InterOperability to finally have some prescriptions on units in the VO. | |||||||
> > | As I already said, the document is quite comprehensive. I think that is a good progress for InterOperability to finally have some prescriptions on units in the VO. | |||||||
I agree with the document. Most of points I noticed in the document have already been mentionned or corrected during the recommendation process.
Approved.
Time Domain Interest Group ( _John Swinbank, Mike Fitzpatrick )I am happy with the content of this document (version 2013-07-24), and have only minor comments:
Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCLast phase update : | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
> > | The previous PR document, VOUnits 1.0-20130724, and the associated grammar supporting the specification, have both been updated. See Dec2013VOUnitsRFC. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
> > | Please check the changes and deliver your comments on this new Dec2013VOUnitsRFC page, to avoid any confusion between the previous and the new version. | |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | Due to implementation requirements the previous PR document : VOUnits 1.0-20130724 and the associated grammar supporting the specification have been updated . Changes are reported in the appendix Update sections of the new version. VOUnits 1.0-20131025 is available for comments for all members of all WG. The review will run for four weeks, from December 10th 2013. Please check the changes and deliver your comments on this new Dec2013VOUnitsRFC page to avoid any confusion between previous and new version . | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | THE TEXT BELOW IS HISTORICAL, FOR REFERENCE ONLY. | |||||||
VOUnits 1.0-20130724 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from XXX.
The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ . This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. Update, 2013-08-12: there has been fairly extensive discussion on the semantics@ivoa list, and there will probably be a further draft released semi-formally within a week or so; keep an eye on the semantics list if you're interested in this. Update, 2013-09-22: after more on-list discussion, there has been another out-of-cycle release; that is now at the document repository above.
The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
|
META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" attr="" comment="updates for last TCG comments" date="1373537491" name="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" path="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" size="703448" user="MireilleLouys" version="1" |
---|---|
META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" attr="" comment="VOUnits PR 1.0-20130724" date="1374771024" name="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" path="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" size="872683" user="NormanGray" version="1" |
VOUnits 1.0 RFCLast phase update : Due to implementation requirements the previous PR document : VOUnits 1.0-20130724 and the associated grammar supporting the specification have been updated . Changes are reported in the appendix Update sections of the new version. VOUnits 1.0-20131025 is available for comments for all members of all WG. The review will run for four weeks, from December 10th 2013. Please check the changes and deliver your comments on this new Dec2013VOUnitsRFC page to avoid any confusion between previous and new version .VOUnits 1.0-20130724 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from XXX. The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ . This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. Update, 2013-08-12: there has been fairly extensive discussion on the semantics@ivoa list, and there will probably be a further draft released semi-formally within a week or so; keep an eye on the semantics list if you're interested in this. Update, 2013-09-22: after more on-list discussion, there has been another out-of-cycle release; that is now at the document repository above. The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | As I already said, the document is quite comprehensive. I think that is a good progress for InterOperability to finally have some prescriptions on units in the VO. I agree with the document. Most of points I noticed in the document have already been mentionned or corrected during the recommendation process. Approved. | |||||||
Time Domain Interest Group ( _John Swinbank, Mike Fitzpatrick )I am happy with the content of this document (version 2013-07-24), and have only minor comments:
Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCLast phase update : Due to implementation requirements the previous PR document : VOUnits 1.0-20130724 and the associated grammar supporting the specification have been updated . Changes are reported in the appendix Update sections of the new version. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | VOUnits 1.0-20131025 is available for comments for WG chairs . The review will run for four weeks, from December 5th 2013. | |||||||
> > | VOUnits 1.0-20131025 is available for comments for all members of all WG. The review will run for four weeks, from December 10th 2013. | |||||||
Please check the changes and deliver your comments on this new Dec2013VOUnitsRFC page to avoid any confusion between previous and new version .
VOUnits 1.0-20130724 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from XXX. The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ . This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. Update, 2013-08-12: there has been fairly extensive discussion on the semantics@ivoa list, and there will probably be a further draft released semi-formally within a week or so; keep an eye on the semantics list if you're interested in this. Update, 2013-09-22: after more on-list discussion, there has been another out-of-cycle release; that is now at the document repository above. The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
|
META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" attr="" comment="updates for last TCG comments" date="1373537491" name="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" path="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" size="703448" user="MireilleLouys" version="1" |
---|---|
META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" attr="" comment="VOUnits PR 1.0-20130724" date="1374771024" name="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" path="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" size="872683" user="NormanGray" version="1" |
VOUnits 1.0 RFC | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
Last phase update :
Due to implementation requirements the previous PR document : VOUnits 1.0-20130724 and the associated grammar supporting the specification have been updated .
Changes are reported in the appendix Update sections of the new version.
VOUnits 1.0-20131025 is available for comments for WG chairs . The review will run for four weeks, from December 5th 2013.
Please check the changes and deliver your comments on this new Dec2013VOUnitsRFC page to avoid any confusion between previous and new version .
| |||||||
VOUnits 1.0-20130724 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from XXX.
The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ . This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. Update, 2013-08-12: there has been fairly extensive discussion on the semantics@ivoa list, and there will probably be a further draft released semi-formally within a week or so; keep an eye on the semantics list if you're interested in this. Update, 2013-09-22: after more on-list discussion, there has been another out-of-cycle release; that is now at the document repository above.
The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
|
META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" attr="" comment="updates for last TCG comments" date="1373537491" name="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" path="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" size="703448" user="MireilleLouys" version="1" |
---|---|
META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" attr="" comment="VOUnits PR 1.0-20130724" date="1374771024" name="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" path="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" size="872683" user="NormanGray" version="1" |
VOUnits 1.0 RFCVOUnits 1.0-20130724 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from XXX. The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ . This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. Update, 2013-08-12: there has been fairly extensive discussion on the semantics@ivoa list, and there will probably be a further draft released semi-formally within a week or so; keep an eye on the semantics list if you're interested in this. Update, 2013-09-22: after more on-list discussion, there has been another out-of-cycle release; that is now at the document repository above. The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Data Access Layer Working Group ( Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick ) | |||||||
> > | Data Access Layer Working Group ( Patrick Dowler, Francois Bonnarel ) | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Table 1: Is gramme accidentally in French or is it intended to be the alternate British English spelling? I would have expected gram instead. Table 2: AU = astro'l unit looks odd; when I first saw it I thought it was astrological unit. I would suggest either the whole word or, if you really need to avoid an ugly use of space, maybe an abbreviation like "astron. unit". Approved. -- PatrickDowler - 2013-09-27 | |||||||
Data Model Working Group ( _Jesus Salgado, Omar Laurino )As said in the document, the scope of the present specification is the standardization of the string format for the units in the VO context. Taking into account this scope, the document is clear and complete. As you probably know, I do not fully share that the only standardization needed for units is the strings. Although it is possible to parse unit strings (we all have a library that, more or less, implements this task) string parsing is, in my view, not recommended and a set of possible strings to be used is limited. String format for units is important but I would have preferred an approach closer to a data model. In this way, we should not care of the jupiterMass or any other kind of peculiar units as the string itself could be ignored for software clients. A complete, flexible and powerful data model for units is not simple. As said in the past, an initial step could be to describe the scaling and the dimensional equation but more things could be needed so the scaleq/dimeq info should have been an starting/initial point. This possible data model would have described, also, a serialization. I approve the document within the aforementioned scope. -- JesusSalgado - 2013-06-14 Thanks, Jesus. I agree that there is some demand for a standardisation of quantities, and possibly some data model which incorporates all of the associated subtleties, and which therefore supports things like unit conversions. However 'quantities' have been contentious in the IVOA in the past, we wanted to avoid re-opening that discussion, and so we concentrated on a specific part of that question, namely the specification of only the unit strings. -- NormanGray - 2013-07-24 Thanks Norman but, in my view, I am not talking about quantities but units. If we say, these are 15 JupMass, I would like to know that 1JupMass=1.898E27 kg (I am talking about what is a JupMass not the "15" jupiter Masses or the error for this "15"), 1JupMass=1.898E27 kg is the definition of the unit, i.e., this defintion should be part of its data model. In any case, as said before, I understand this spec is only trying to describe unit strings, so I approve the document within the aforementioned scope. -- JesusSalgado - 2013-07-30Grid & Web Services Working Group ( Andreas Wicenec, Andre Schaaff ) | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | ||||||||
Approved -- AndreSchaaff - 2013-09-22
Registry Working Group ( _Gretchen Greene, Pierre Le Sidaner)Taking into account the comment of Baptiste Cecconi by proposing "good practice" as for other body of the solar systempage 13 "The symbol Sun is used to express ratios relative to solar values," maybe additional possibility of using other solar system body with it's 3 first letter Jup, Moo, etc. This will help the solar system community to keep compliance with their services, not waiting for next version. -- Approved with these comments PierreLeSidaner GretchenGreene - 2013-09-20 Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova )Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner )Time Domain Interest Group ( _John Swinbank, Mike Fitzpatrick )I am happy with the content of this document (version 2013-07-24), and have only minor comments:
Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCVOUnits 1.0-20130724 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from XXX. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ . This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. Update, 2013-08-12: there has been fairly extensive discussion on the semantics@ivoa list, and there will probably be a further draft released semi-formally within a week or so; keep an eye on the semantics list if you're interested in this. Update, 2013-09-22: after more on-list discussion, there has been another out-of-cycle release; that's to appear at the document repository above, but is temporarily here | |||||||
> > | The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ . This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. Update, 2013-08-12: there has been fairly extensive discussion on the semantics@ivoa list, and there will probably be a further draft released semi-formally within a week or so; keep an eye on the semantics list if you're interested in this. Update, 2013-09-22: after more on-list discussion, there has been another out-of-cycle release; that is now at the document repository above. | |||||||
The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
|
META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" attr="" comment="updates for last TCG comments" date="1373537491" name="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" path="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" size="703448" user="MireilleLouys" version="1" |
---|---|
META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" attr="" comment="VOUnits PR 1.0-20130724" date="1374771024" name="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" path="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" size="872683" user="NormanGray" version="1" |
VOUnits 1.0 RFCVOUnits 1.0-20130724 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from XXX. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ . This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. Update, 2013-08-12: there has been fairly extensive discussion on the semantics@ivoa list, and there will probably be a further draft released semi-formally within a week or so; keep an eye on the semantics list if you're interested in this. | |||||||
> > | The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ . This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. Update, 2013-08-12: there has been fairly extensive discussion on the semantics@ivoa list, and there will probably be a further draft released semi-formally within a week or so; keep an eye on the semantics list if you're interested in this. Update, 2013-09-22: after more on-list discussion, there has been another out-of-cycle release; that's to appear at the document repository above, but is temporarily here | |||||||
The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
|
META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" attr="" comment="updates for last TCG comments" date="1373537491" name="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" path="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" size="703448" user="MireilleLouys" version="1" |
---|---|
META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" attr="" comment="VOUnits PR 1.0-20130724" date="1374771024" name="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" path="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" size="872683" user="NormanGray" version="1" |
VOUnits 1.0 RFCVOUnits 1.0-20130724 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from XXX. The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ . This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. Update, 2013-08-12: there has been fairly extensive discussion on the semantics@ivoa list, and there will probably be a further draft released semi-formally within a week or so; keep an eye on the semantics list if you're interested in this. The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Approved -- AndreSchaaff - 2013-09-22 | |||||||
Registry Working Group ( _Gretchen Greene, Pierre Le Sidaner)Taking into account the comment of Baptiste Cecconi by proposing "good practice" as for other body of the solar systempage 13 "The symbol Sun is used to express ratios relative to solar values," maybe additional possibility of using other solar system body with it's 3 first letter Jup, Moo, etc. This will help the solar system community to keep compliance with their services, not waiting for next version. -- Approved with these comments PierreLeSidaner GretchenGreene - 2013-09-20 Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova )Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner )Time Domain Interest Group ( _John Swinbank, Mike Fitzpatrick )I am happy with the content of this document (version 2013-07-24), and have only minor comments:
Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCVOUnits 1.0-20130724 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from XXX. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ . This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. Update, 2013-08-12: there has been fairly extensive discussion on the semantics@ivoa list, and there will probably be a further draft released semi-formally within a week or so; keep an eye on the semantics list if you're interested in this. | |||||||
> > | The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ . This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. Update, 2013-08-12: there has been fairly extensive discussion on the semantics@ivoa list, and there will probably be a further draft released semi-formally within a week or so; keep an eye on the semantics list if you're interested in this. | |||||||
The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Taking into account the comment of Baptiste Cecconi by proposing "good practice" as for other body of the solar system page 13 "The symbol Sun is used to express ratios relative to solar values," maybe additional possibility of using other solar system body with it's 3 first letter Jup, Moo, etc. This will help the solar system community to keep compliance with their services, not waiting for next version. -- Approved with these comments PierreLeSidaner GretchenGreene - 2013-09-20 | |||||||
Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova )Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner )Time Domain Interest Group ( _John Swinbank, Mike Fitzpatrick )I am happy with the content of this document (version 2013-07-24), and have only minor comments:
Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCVOUnits 1.0-20130724 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from XXX. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ (XXX not yet updated: instead use the attached VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf). This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. | |||||||
> > | The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ . This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. Update, 2013-08-12: there has been fairly extensive discussion on the semantics@ivoa list, and there will probably be a further draft released semi-formally within a week or so; keep an eye on the semantics list if you're interested in this. | |||||||
The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
|
META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" attr="" comment="updates for last TCG comments" date="1373537491" name="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" path="PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf" size="703448" user="MireilleLouys" version="1" |
---|---|
META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" attr="" comment="VOUnits PR 1.0-20130724" date="1374771024" name="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" path="VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf" size="872683" user="NormanGray" version="1" |
VOUnits 1.0 RFCVOUnits 1.0-20130724 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from XXX. The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ (XXX not yet updated: instead use the attached VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf). This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Time Domain Interest Group ( _Matthew Graham, John Swinbank ) | |||||||
> > | Time Domain Interest Group ( _John Swinbank, Mike Fitzpatrick ) | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | I am happy with the content of this document (version 2013-07-24), and have only minor comments:
| |||||||
Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCVOUnits 1.0-20130724 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from XXX. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ (XXX not yet updated: instead use the attached VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf). | |||||||
> > | The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ (XXX not yet updated: instead use the attached VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf). This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. | |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. | |||||||
The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
Existing commentary:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | I agree that such a set of units would be desirable, to some extent, but I confess that I don't really know what to do regarding them. We could add a large collection of extra units for various planets, but then we'd feel obliged to add dwarf planets, and satellites, and I don't know where we'd stop. We could encourage or endorse a pattern such as mass(Jupiter), which looks like function application; but again, where do we stop? | |||||||
> > | I agree that such a set of units would be desirable, to some extent, but I confess that I don't really know what to do regarding them. We could add a large collection of extra units for various planets, but then we'd feel obliged to add dwarf planets, and satellites, and I don't know where we'd stop. We could encourage or endorse a pattern such as mass(Jupiter), which looks like function application; but again, where do we stop? | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | The current version of the document (and the associated Unity library) now accepts functions of units. It recommends log, ln, exp and sqrt, because the FITS specification does, but recommends that parsers accept unrecognised functions, even if they subsequently deprecate them in some way. In that way, your 'db(xxx)' example would work. Do you think this needs more specification, so that 'dB' is specifically defined as a function in the document (it's currently defined as a special-case and unprefixable unit). | |||||||
> > | The current version of the document (and the associated Unity library) now accepts functions of units. It recommends log, ln, exp and sqrt, because the FITS specification does, but recommends that parsers accept unrecognised functions, even if they subsequently deprecate them in some way. In that way, your 'db(xxx)' example would work. Do you think this needs more specification, so that 'dB' is specifically defined as a function in the document (it's currently defined as a special-case and unprefixable unit). | |||||||
Given this treatment of functions and unrecognised units, the pattern 'mass(Jupiter)' would therefore, we suggest, be syntactically acceptable to any conforming parser, even though there wouldn't be any recommended semantics attached to it.
-- NormanGray - 2013-07-24
Comments from TCG (WG and IG chairs)TCG Chair & Vice Chair ( _Séverin Gaudet, Matthew Graham )Applications Working Group ( _Mark Taylor, Pierre Fernique )Good doc for me. Easy to read, easy to understand. Just a few remarks and suggestions. Page 9 - 2.4 Scale factors
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Thanks for these comments, Pierre. I hope that the rationale in the current version of the document is clearer than it was. I've incorporated changes which arrived via Sébastien and Mireille. | |||||||
> > | Thanks for these comments, Pierre. I hope that the rationale in the current version of the document is clearer than it was. I've incorporated changes which arrived via Sébastien and Mireille. -- NormanGray - 2013-07-24 | |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | -- NormanGray - 2013-07-24 | |||||||
All of the above remarks are suggestions for the consideration of the authors to act on if they agree. Apps WG approves the document in any case.
Answer :The Architecture diagram is updated in the new revision of the document (Proposed Recommendation 2013-07-01) PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf -- MireilleLouys - 2013-07-11 Data Access Layer Working Group ( Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick )Data Model Working Group ( _Jesus Salgado, Omar Laurino )As said in the document, the scope of the present specification is the standardization of the string format for the units in the VO context. Taking into account this scope, the document is clear and complete. As you probably know, I do not fully share that the only standardization needed for units is the strings. Although it is possible to parse unit strings (we all have a library that, more or less, implements this task) string parsing is, in my view, not recommended and a set of possible strings to be used is limited. String format for units is important but I would have preferred an approach closer to a data model. In this way, we should not care of the jupiterMass or any other kind of peculiar units as the string itself could be ignored for software clients. A complete, flexible and powerful data model for units is not simple. As said in the past, an initial step could be to describe the scaling and the dimensional equation but more things could be needed so the scaleq/dimeq info should have been an starting/initial point. This possible data model would have described, also, a serialization. I approve the document within the aforementioned scope. -- JesusSalgado - 2013-06-14 Thanks, Jesus. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | I agree that there is some demand for a standardisation of quantities, and possibly some data model which incorporates all of the associated subtleties, and which therefore supports things like unit conversions. However 'quantities' have been contentious in the IVOA in the past, we wanted to avoid re-opening that discussion, and so we concentrated on a specific part of that question, namely the specification of only the unit strings. | |||||||
> > | I agree that there is some demand for a standardisation of quantities, and possibly some data model which incorporates all of the associated subtleties, and which therefore supports things like unit conversions. However 'quantities' have been contentious in the IVOA in the past, we wanted to avoid re-opening that discussion, and so we concentrated on a specific part of that question, namely the specification of only the unit strings. | |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
-- NormanGray - 2013-07-24 | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Thanks Norman but, in my view, I am not talking about quantities but units. If we say, these are 15 JupMass, I would like to know that 1JupMass=1.898E27 kg (I am talking about what is a JupMass not the "15" jupiter Masses or the error for this "15"), 1JupMass=1.898E27 kg is the definition of the unit, i.e., this defintion should be part of its data model. In any case, as said before, I understand this spec is only trying to describe unit strings, so I approve the document within the aforementioned scope. -- JesusSalgado - 2013-07-30 | |||||||
Grid & Web Services Working Group ( Andreas Wicenec, Andre Schaaff )Registry Working Group ( _Gretchen Greene, Pierre Le Sidaner)Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova )Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner )Time Domain Interest Group ( _Matthew Graham, John Swinbank )Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCVOUnits 1.0-20130724 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from XXX. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ (XXX soon!). | |||||||
> > | The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ (XXX not yet updated: instead use the attached VOUnits-PR-1.0-20130724.pdf). | |||||||
This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below.
The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | ||||||||
Existing commentary:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
VOUnits 1.0 RFC | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | VOUnits 1.0-20130429 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from 30 April to (the end of) 28 May. | |||||||
> > | VOUnits 1.0-20130724 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from XXX. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. | |||||||
> > | The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ (XXX soon!). | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. | |||||||
The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | There is the possibility of using the log fonction as in log(V^2/Hz). | |||||||
> > | There is the possibility of using the log function as in log(V^2/Hz). | |||||||
Should we use 10.log(V^2/Hz) instead of dB(V^2/Hz) ? -- BaptisteCecconi - 2013-05-17 | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Thank you for these comments, Baptiste. I agree that such a set of units would be desirable, to some extent, but I confess that I don't really know what to do regarding them. We could add a large collection of extra units for various planets, but then we'd feel obliged to add dwarf planets, and satellites, and I don't know where we'd stop. We could encourage or endorse a pattern such as mass(Jupiter), which looks like function application; but again, where do we stop? The current version of the document (and the associated Unity library) now accepts functions of units. It recommends log, ln, exp and sqrt, because the FITS specification does, but recommends that parsers accept unrecognised functions, even if they subsequently deprecate them in some way. In that way, your 'db(xxx)' example would work. Do you think this needs more specification, so that 'dB' is specifically defined as a function in the document (it's currently defined as a special-case and unprefixable unit). Given this treatment of functions and unrecognised units, the pattern 'mass(Jupiter)' would therefore, we suggest, be syntactically acceptable to any conforming parser, even though there wouldn't be any recommended semantics attached to it. -- NormanGray - 2013-07-24 | |||||||
Comments from TCG (WG and IG chairs)TCG Chair & Vice Chair ( _Séverin Gaudet, Matthew Graham )Applications Working Group ( _Mark Taylor, Pierre Fernique )Good doc for me. Easy to read, easy to understand. Just a few remarks and suggestions. Page 9 - 2.4 Scale factors
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Thanks for these comments, Pierre. I hope that the rationale in the current version of the document is clearer than it was. I've incorporated changes which arrived via Sébastien and Mireille. -- NormanGray - 2013-07-24 | |||||||
All of the above remarks are suggestions for the consideration of the authors to act on if they agree. Apps WG approves the document in any case.
Answer :The Architecture diagram is updated in the new revision of the document (Proposed Recommendation 2013-07-01) PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf -- MireilleLouys - 2013-07-11 Data Access Layer Working Group ( Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick )Data Model Working Group ( _Jesus Salgado, Omar Laurino )As said in the document, the scope of the present specification is the standardization of the string format for the units in the VO context. Taking into account this scope, the document is clear and complete. As you probably know, I do not fully share that the only standardization needed for units is the strings. Although it is possible to parse unit strings (we all have a library that, more or less, implements this task) string parsing is, in my view, not recommended and a set of possible strings to be used is limited. String format for units is important but I would have preferred an approach closer to a data model. In this way, we should not care of the jupiterMass or any other kind of peculiar units as the string itself could be ignored for software clients. A complete, flexible and powerful data model for units is not simple. As said in the past, an initial step could be to describe the scaling and the dimensional equation but more things could be needed so the scaleq/dimeq info should have been an starting/initial point. This possible data model would have described, also, a serialization. I approve the document within the aforementioned scope. -- JesusSalgado - 2013-06-14 | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Thanks, Jesus. I agree that there is some demand for a standardisation of quantities, and possibly some data model which incorporates all of the associated subtleties, and which therefore supports things like unit conversions. However 'quantities' have been contentious in the IVOA in the past, we wanted to avoid re-opening that discussion, and so we concentrated on a specific part of that question, namely the specification of only the unit strings. -- NormanGray - 2013-07-24 | |||||||
Grid & Web Services Working Group ( Andreas Wicenec, Andre Schaaff )Registry Working Group ( _Gretchen Greene, Pierre Le Sidaner)Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova )Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner )Time Domain Interest Group ( _Matthew Graham, John Swinbank )Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCVOUnits 1.0-20130429 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from 30 April to (the end of) 28 May. The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Answer : Scientific notation example included as suggested. Thanks
| |||||||
Page 14 - 2.8 Remarks and good practices
PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf -- MireilleLouys - 2013-07-11 Data Access Layer Working Group ( Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick )Data Model Working Group ( _Jesus Salgado, Omar Laurino )As said in the document, the scope of the present specification is the standardization of the string format for the units in the VO context. Taking into account this scope, the document is clear and complete. As you probably know, I do not fully share that the only standardization needed for units is the strings. Although it is possible to parse unit strings (we all have a library that, more or less, implements this task) string parsing is, in my view, not recommended and a set of possible strings to be used is limited. String format for units is important but I would have preferred an approach closer to a data model. In this way, we should not care of the jupiterMass or any other kind of peculiar units as the string itself could be ignored for software clients. A complete, flexible and powerful data model for units is not simple. As said in the past, an initial step could be to describe the scaling and the dimensional equation but more things could be needed so the scaleq/dimeq info should have been an starting/initial point. This possible data model would have described, also, a serialization. I approve the document within the aforementioned scope. -- JesusSalgado - 2013-06-14Grid & Web Services Working Group ( Andreas Wicenec, Andre Schaaff )Registry Working Group ( _Gretchen Greene, Pierre Le Sidaner)Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova )Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner )Time Domain Interest Group ( _Matthew Graham, John Swinbank )Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCVOUnits 1.0-20130429 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from 30 April to (the end of) 28 May. The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Answer :The Architecture diagram is updated in the new revision of the document (Proposed Recommendation 2013-07-01) PR-VOUnits-1.0-20130701.pdf -- MireilleLouys - 2013-07-11 | |||||||
Data Access Layer Working Group ( Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick )Data Model Working Group ( _Jesus Salgado, Omar Laurino ) | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | As said in the document, the scope of the present specification is the standardization of the string format for the units in the VO context. Taking into account this scope, | |||||||
> > | As said in the document, the scope of the present specification is the standardization of the string format for the units in the VO context. Taking into account this scope, the document is clear and complete. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | the document is clear and complete. | |||||||
> > | As you probably know, I do not fully share that the only standardization needed for units is the strings. Although it is possible to parse unit strings (we all have a library that, more or less, implements this task) string parsing is, in my view, not recommended and a set of possible strings to be used is limited. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | As you probably know, I do not fully share that the only standardization needed for units is the strings. Although it is possible to parse unit strings (we all have a library that, | |||||||
> > | String format for units is important but I would have preferred an approach closer to a data model. In this way, we should not care of the jupiterMass or any other kind of peculiar units as the string itself could be ignored for software clients. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | more or less, implements this task) string parsing is, in my view, not recommended and a set of possible strings to be used is limited. | |||||||
> > | A complete, flexible and powerful data model for units is not simple. As said in the past, an initial step could be to describe the scaling and the dimensional equation but more things could be needed so the scaleq/dimeq info should have been an starting/initial point. This possible data model would have described, also, a serialization. | |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | String format for units is important but I would have preferred an approach closer to a data model. In this way, we should not care of the jupiterMass or any other kind of peculiar units as the string itself could be ignored for software clients. A complete, flexible and powerful data model for units is not simple. As said in the past, an initial step could be to describe the scaling and the dimensional equation but more things could be needed so the scaleq/dimeq info should have been an starting/initial point. This possible data model would have described, also, a serialization. | |||||||
I approve the document within the aforementioned scope.
-- JesusSalgado - 2013-06-14
Grid & Web Services Working Group ( Andreas Wicenec, Andre Schaaff )Registry Working Group ( _Gretchen Greene, Pierre Le Sidaner)Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova )Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner )Time Domain Interest Group ( _Matthew Graham, John Swinbank )Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
VOUnits 1.0 RFCVOUnits 1.0-20130429 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from 30 April to (the end of) 28 May. The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | All of the above remarks are suggestions for the consideration of the authors to act on if they agree. Apps WG approves the document in any case. | |||||||
> > | All of the above remarks are suggestions for the consideration of the authors to act on if they agree. Apps WG approves the document in any case. | |||||||
Data Access Layer Working Group ( Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick )Data Model Working Group ( _Jesus Salgado, Omar Laurino ) | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | As said in the document, the scope of the present specification is the standardization of the string format for the units in the VO context. Taking into account this scope, the document is clear and complete. As you probably know, I do not fully share that the only standardization needed for units is the strings. Although it is possible to parse unit strings (we all have a library that, more or less, implements this task) string parsing is, in my view, not recommended and a set of possible strings to be used is limited. String format for units is important but I would have preferred an approach closer to a data model. In this way, we should not care of the jupiterMass or any other kind of peculiar units as the string itself could be ignored for software clients. A complete, flexible and powerful data model for units is not simple. As said in the past, an initial step could be to describe the scaling and the dimensional equation but more things could be needed so the scaleq/dimeq info should have been an starting/initial point. This possible data model would have described, also, a serialization. I approve the document within the aforementioned scope. -- JesusSalgado - 2013-06-14 | |||||||
Grid & Web Services Working Group ( Andreas Wicenec, Andre Schaaff )Registry Working Group ( _Gretchen Greene, Pierre Le Sidaner)Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova )Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner )Time Domain Interest Group ( _Matthew Graham, John Swinbank )Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCVOUnits 1.0-20130429 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from 30 April to (the end of) 28 May. The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | All of the above remarks are suggestions for the consideration of the authors to act on if they agree. Apps WG approves the document in any case. | |||||||
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)Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova )Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner )Time Domain Interest Group ( _Matthew Graham, John Swinbank )Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCVOUnits 1.0-20130429 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from 30 April to (the end of) 28 May. The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
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)Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova )Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner )Time Domain Interest Group ( _Matthew Graham, John Swinbank )Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCVOUnits 1.0-20130429 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from 30 April to (the end of) 28 May. The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | We need mass and distance units related to solar system objects, such as: Mass of the Sun, Mass of Earth, of Mars, of Jupiter, of Titan, etc; Radius of Sun, Radius of Earth, of Mars, of Jupiter, of Titan, etc. | |||||||
> > | We need mass and distance units related to solar system objects, such as: Mass of the Sun, Mass of Earth, of Mars, of Jupiter, of Titan, etc; Radius of Sun, Radius of Earth, of Mars, of Jupiter, of Titan, etc. | |||||||
Should we propose a list of bodies for which we need it ? And should we propose a convention for naming these units ? | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | For instance, using "M_" and "R_" prefix and the three first letters of the corresponding body: | |||||||
> > | For instance, using the three first letters of the corresponding body, as it is already proposed for the Sun in the current version of recommendation: | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Additional comment: | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | -- BaptisteCecconi - 2013-05-16 | |||||||
> > | What about units in dB ? | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | A very common unit in low frequency radioastronomy is dB(V^2/Hz) or dB(W/m^2/Hz) There is the possibility of using the log fonction as in log(V^2/Hz). Should we use 10.log(V^2/Hz) instead of dB(V^2/Hz) ? -- BaptisteCecconi - 2013-05-17 | |||||||
Comments from TCG (WG and IG chairs)TCG Chair & Vice Chair ( _Séverin Gaudet, Matthew Graham )Applications Working Group ( _Mark Taylor, Pierre Fernique )Good doc for me. Easy to read, easy to understand. Just a few remarks and suggestions. Page 9 - 2.4 Scale factors
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)Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova )Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner )Time Domain Interest Group ( _Matthew Graham, John Swinbank )Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCVOUnits 1.0-20130429 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from 30 April to (the end of) 28 May. The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Comments from Baptiste Cecconi / VOParis (2013-05-16)We need mass and distance units related to solar system objects, such as: Mass of the Sun, Mass of Earth, of Mars, of Jupiter, of Titan, etc; Radius of Sun, Radius of Earth, of Mars, of Jupiter, of Titan, etc. Should we propose a list of bodies for which we need it ? And should we propose a convention for naming these units ? For instance, using "M_" and "R_" prefix and the three first letters of the corresponding body:
| |||||||
Comments from TCG (WG and IG chairs)TCG Chair & Vice Chair ( _Séverin Gaudet, Matthew Graham )Applications Working Group ( _Mark Taylor, Pierre Fernique )Good doc for me. Easy to read, easy to understand. Just a few remarks and suggestions. Page 9 - 2.4 Scale factors
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)Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova )Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner )Time Domain Interest Group ( _Matthew Graham, John Swinbank )Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFC | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | VOUnits 1.0-20130429 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from 30 April to (the end of) 28 May. | |||||||
> > | VOUnits 1.0-20130429 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from 30 April to (the end of) 28 May. | |||||||
The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below.
The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Good doc for me. Easy to read, easy to understand.
Just a few remarks and suggestions.
Page 9 - 2.4 Scale factors
| |||||||
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)Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova )Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner )Time Domain Interest Group ( _Matthew Graham, John Swinbank )Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFC | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | This is the RFC centre for the IVOA VOUnits 1.0 Proposed Recommendation. | |||||||
> > | VOUnits 1.0-20130429 is now ready for TCG review. The review will run for four weeks, from 30 April to (the end of) 28 May. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > | The document is available at http://www.ivoa.net/documents/VOUnits/ This incorporates (somewhat overdue) changes after the RFC process represented by the comments below. | |||||||
The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | ||||||||
Comments from TCG (WG and IG chairs)TCG Chair & Vice Chair ( _Séverin Gaudet, Matthew Graham )Applications Working Group ( _Mark Taylor, Pierre Fernique )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)Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova )Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner )Time Domain Interest Group ( _Matthew Graham, John Swinbank )Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCThis is the RFC centre for the IVOA VOUnits 1.0 Proposed Recommendation.
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | I'm reluctant to be innovative here, since part of the goal of the VOUnits work is to say "If you write in the VOUnits subset, then others have no excuse for not being able to parse what you write". -- NormanGray - 2013-04-29 | |||||||
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | All fixed, I think. I don't follow the issue about the "Status of this document" section, but this has been tidied up a bit, so perhaps the problem has been fixed. -- NormanGray - 2013-04-29 | |||||||
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
Some more minor things:
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Response, response, response | |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | [...] | |||||||
> > | Thanks for various comments, everyone. See volute revision 2143. | |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | One response (yyyy mm dd) | |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | Response, response, response [...] | |||||||
Comments from TCG (WG and IG chairs)TCG Chair & Vice Chair ( _Séverin Gaudet, Matthew Graham )Applications Working Group ( _Mark Taylor, Pierre Fernique )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)Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys) | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova ) | |||||||
> > | Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova ) | |||||||
Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner )Time Domain Interest Group ( _Matthew Graham, John Swinbank )Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova )<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCThis is the RFC centre for the IVOA VOUnits 1.0 Proposed Recommendation.
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | TCG Chair & Vice Chair (Séverin Gaudet and Matthew Graham) | |||||||
> > | TCG Chair & Vice Chair ( _Séverin Gaudet, Matthew Graham ) | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Applications (Mark Taylor and Pierre Fernique) | |||||||
> > | Applications Working Group ( _Mark Taylor, Pierre Fernique ) | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler and Mike Fitzpatrick) | |||||||
> > | Data Access Layer Working Group ( Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick ) | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Data Model (Jesus Salgado and Omar Laurino) | |||||||
> > | Data Model Working Group ( _Jesus Salgado, Omar Laurino ) | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Grid&Web Sevices (Andreas Wicenec and André Schaaff) | |||||||
> > | Grid & Web Services Working Group ( Andreas Wicenec, Andre Schaaff ) | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Registry (Gretchen Greene and Pierre Le Sidaner) | |||||||
> > | Registry Working Group ( _Gretchen Greene, Pierre Le Sidaner) | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Semantics (Norman Gray and Mireille Louys) | |||||||
> > | Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys) | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | VOEvent (Matthew Graham and John Swinbank) | |||||||
> > | Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Françoise Genova ) | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Data Curation & Preservation IG (Alberto Accomazzi) | |||||||
> > | Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway ) | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Knowledge Discovery in Databases IG (Giuseppe Longo) | |||||||
> > | Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski ) | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Theory IG (Franck Le Petit and Rick Wagner) | |||||||
> > | Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner ) | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
Time Domain Interest Group ( _Matthew Graham, John Swinbank )Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova ) | |||||||
<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCThis is the RFC centre for the IVOA VOUnits 1.0 Proposed Recommendation.
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
Generally there was a feeling that the language in the specification could be clearer on what the basis of this recommendation is, i.e., it's essentially the FITS units convention. Also:
| |||||||
One response (yyyy mm dd)Response, response, response [...]Comments from TCG (WG and IG chairs)TCG Chair & Vice Chair (Séverin Gaudet and Matthew Graham)Applications (Mark Taylor and Pierre Fernique)Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler and Mike Fitzpatrick)Data Model (Jesus Salgado and Omar Laurino)Grid&Web Sevices (Andreas Wicenec and André Schaaff)Registry (Gretchen Greene and Pierre Le Sidaner)Semantics (Norman Gray and Mireille Louys)VOEvent (Matthew Graham and John Swinbank)Data Curation & Preservation IG (Alberto Accomazzi)Knowledge Discovery in Databases IG (Giuseppe Longo)Theory IG (Franck Le Petit and Rick Wagner)<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCThis is the RFC centre for the IVOA VOUnits 1.0 Proposed Recommendation.
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August)Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both.
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
-- MarkusDemleitner - 2012-09-03 | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
Comments from Mark TaylorLooks good. A couple of very minor things
| |||||||
One response (yyyy mm dd)Response, response, response [...]Comments from TCG (WG and IG chairs)TCG Chair & Vice Chair (Séverin Gaudet and Matthew Graham)Applications (Mark Taylor and Pierre Fernique)Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler and Mike Fitzpatrick)Data Model (Jesus Salgado and Omar Laurino)Grid&Web Sevices (Andreas Wicenec and André Schaaff)Registry (Gretchen Greene and Pierre Le Sidaner)Semantics (Norman Gray and Mireille Louys)VOEvent (Matthew Graham and John Swinbank)Data Curation & Preservation IG (Alberto Accomazzi)Knowledge Discovery in Databases IG (Giuseppe Longo)Theory IG (Franck Le Petit and Rick Wagner)<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCThis is the RFC centre for the IVOA VOUnits 1.0 Proposed Recommendation.
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:Off-line comments (2012 August) | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both. | |||||||
> > | Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
-- NormanGray (2012-09-02) | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
Additional comments from Markus (2012-09-03)
| |||||||
One response (yyyy mm dd)Response, response, response [...]Comments from TCG (WG and IG chairs)TCG Chair & Vice Chair (Séverin Gaudet and Matthew Graham)Applications (Mark Taylor and Pierre Fernique)Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler and Mike Fitzpatrick)Data Model (Jesus Salgado and Omar Laurino)Grid&Web Sevices (Andreas Wicenec and André Schaaff)Registry (Gretchen Greene and Pierre Le Sidaner)Semantics (Norman Gray and Mireille Louys)VOEvent (Matthew Graham and John Swinbank)Data Curation & Preservation IG (Alberto Accomazzi)Knowledge Discovery in Databases IG (Giuseppe Longo)Theory IG (Franck Le Petit and Rick Wagner)<--
|
VOUnits 1.0 RFCThis is the RFC centre for the IVOA VOUnits 1.0 Proposed Recommendation.
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
Existing commentary:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Note on implementations: This document does not define a protocol, but summarises existing practice, and recommends good practice for future IVOA specification. In consequence, the existing software which parses units specifications (summarised in the document) can be regarded as 'implementations' of the document. In addition, the Unity library, which was written in part to validate some of the document's conclusions, can be regarded as an implementation of the standard. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Note on implementations: This document does not define a protocol, but summarises existing practice, and recommends good practice for future IVOA specification. In consequence, the existing software which parses units specifications (summarised in the document) can be regarded as 'implementations' of the document. In addition, the Unity library, which was written in part to validate some of the document's conclusions, can be regarded as an implementation of the standard. | |||||||
> > | ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern: | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | One comment (yyyy mm dd) | |||||||
> > | Off-line comments (2012 August) | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Comment, comment comment. | |||||||
> > | Norman Gray received some direct comments from Tim Jenness and Markus Demleitner. These were in part typo-level comments, but included some more significant points about the substance of the document. Many thanks to both. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | --IVOA.NormanGray (signature) | |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | -- NormanGray (2012-09-02) | |||||||
One response (yyyy mm dd)Response, response, response [...] | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
> > | ||||||||
Comments from TCG (WG and IG chairs)TCG Chair & Vice Chair (Séverin Gaudet and Matthew Graham)Applications (Mark Taylor and Pierre Fernique)Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler and Mike Fitzpatrick)Data Model (Jesus Salgado and Omar Laurino)Grid&Web Sevices (Andreas Wicenec and André Schaaff)Registry (Gretchen Greene and Pierre Le Sidaner) | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Semantics (Norman Gray and Mireille Louys) | |||||||
> > | Semantics (Norman Gray and Mireille Louys) | |||||||
VOEvent (Matthew Graham and John Swinbank) | ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
Data Curation & Preservation IG (Alberto Accomazzi)Knowledge Discovery in Databases IG (Giuseppe Longo)Theory IG (Franck Le Petit and Rick Wagner) | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
> > |
VOUnits 1.0 RFCThis is the RFC centre for the IVOA VOUnits 1.0 Proposed Recommendation. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
The VOUnits document is intended to describe existing and recommended practice for writing units specifications in IVOA protocols:
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:One comment (yyyy mm dd)Comment, comment comment. --IVOA.NormanGray (signature)One response (yyyy mm dd)Response, response, response [...]Comments from TCG (WG and IG chairs)TCG Chair & Vice Chair (Séverin Gaudet and Matthew Graham)Applications (Mark Taylor and Pierre Fernique)Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler and Mike Fitzpatrick)Data Model (Jesus Salgado and Omar Laurino)Grid&Web Sevices (Andreas Wicenec and André Schaaff)Registry (Gretchen Greene and Pierre Le Sidaner)Semantics (Norman Gray and Mireille Louys)VOEvent (Matthew Graham and John Swinbank)Data Curation & Preservation IG (Alberto Accomazzi)Knowledge Discovery in Databases IG (Giuseppe Longo)Theory IG (Franck Le Petit and Rick Wagner)<--
|
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | VOUnits 1.0 RFC | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | VOUnits RFC | |||||||
> > | This is the RFC centre for the IVOA VOUnits 1.0 Proposed Recommendation. | |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | This is the RFC centre for the IVOA VOUnits Proposed Recommendation. | |||||||
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:One comment (yyyy mm dd)Comment, comment comment. --IVOA.NormanGray (signature)One response (yyyy mm dd)Response, response, response [...]Comments from TCG (WG and IG chairs) | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
TCG Chair & Vice Chair (Séverin Gaudet and Matthew Graham) | |||||||
Applications (Mark Taylor and Pierre Fernique)Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler and Mike Fitzpatrick)Data Model (Jesus Salgado and Omar Laurino)Grid&Web Sevices (Andreas Wicenec and André Schaaff)Registry (Gretchen Greene and Pierre Le Sidaner)Semantics (Norman Gray and Mireille Louys)VOEvent (Matthew Graham and John Swinbank)Data Curation & Preservation IG (Alberto Accomazzi)Knowledge Discovery in Databases IG (Giuseppe Longo)Theory IG (Franck Le Petit and Rick Wagner)<--
|
VOUnits RFCThis is the RFC centre for the IVOA VOUnits Proposed Recommendation.
CommentsPlease follow roughly the following pattern:One comment (yyyy mm dd)Comment, comment comment. --IVOA.NormanGray (signature)One response (yyyy mm dd)Response, response, response [...]Comments from TCG (WG and IG chairs)Applications (Mark Taylor and Pierre Fernique)Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler and Mike Fitzpatrick)Data Model (Jesus Salgado and Omar Laurino)Grid&Web Sevices (Andreas Wicenec and André Schaaff)Registry (Gretchen Greene and Pierre Le Sidaner)Semantics (Norman Gray and Mireille Louys)VOEvent (Matthew Graham and John Swinbank)Data Curation & Preservation IG (Alberto Accomazzi)Knowledge Discovery in Databases IG (Giuseppe Longo)Theory IG (Franck Le Petit and Rick Wagner)<--
|