Photometry DM RFC

This document will act as RFC centre for the Photometry DM http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/PHOTDM/

This is the second RFC process for this DM. Previous RFC page can still be found at: http://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/PhotDM10RFCOLD

Please notice this version is an updated version of the previous Photometry DM with some changes in the UML but maintaining the utypes as in the

current way. A parallel PhotDMv1-1 draft is being prepared in parallel with the VO-DML utypes approach.

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 dm@ivoa.net. However, please be sure to enter your initial comments here for full consideration in any future revisions of this document.

Implementation details

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

RFC Review Period: 04 July 2013 - 04 August 2013

Comments from the IVOA Community during RFC period:

TCG Review Period: 05 August 2013 - 10 September 2013

Comments from TCG member during the TCG Review Period:

WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any and formally indicate if they approve or not the Standard.

IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, although their inputs are not compulsory.

TCG Chair & Vice Chair ( _Séverin Gaudet, Matthew Graham)

The architecture diagram and description should be moved to the Introduction. Once done, it is approved

-- SeverinGaudet - 2013-09-28

Applications Working Group ( _Mark Taylor, Pierre Fernique)

This is a clear and as far as I can tell well-motivated document. I don't have expert knowledge about photometry, so I can't comment on its adequacy for its intended purpose, but I don't see any problems with it from the Applications WG point of view, so we are happy to recommend acceptance.

There are a few typos and minor errors:

• Acknowledgements: "initials versions" -> "initial versions"
• Sec 2: "as per explained" -> "as explained"

OK to both -- JesusSalgado - 2013-09-03

• Sec 3: Figure 1 contains the box "Source" which doesn't seem to be doing anything - remove it?

Although this DM has not been developed, there are many IVOA parties that are asking for it so I would prefer to

mantain the placeholder. A comment has been added to clarify this -- JesusSalgado - 2013-09-03

• Sec 3.2.6: " YYYY-MM-DD[T[hh[:mm[:ss[.s[TZD]]]]]] " - I don't quite understand the "[TZD]" here. If TZD is supposed to be a time zone designator, the (unexplained, but fairly obvious) syntax suggests it is only permissible to use it if a fractional part of the seconds is explicitly included, which seems a bit strange. Also, I think I'm right in saying that general usage elsewhere in IVOA standards does not encourage/permit time zone indicators (e.g. DALI sec 3.1.2).

I agree TZD should be discouraged in VO context. Removed -- JesusSalgado - 2013-09-03

• Sec 3.2.8: "the more representative" -> "the most representative"

OK -- JesusSalgado - 2013-09-03

• Sec 3.6.3: "See Appendix 5.2" - what document does this refer to? Not PhotDMv1-1 itself.

Reference corrected -- JesusSalgado - 2013-09-03

• Appendix B: Table heading "UCD+1" should be "UCD 1+"?
• Appendix B: "may belong to on of three" -> "may belong to one of three"
• Appendix B: "Transmission curve are also" -> "Transmission curves are also"
• Appendix B: "Other serialization using array of points" -> "Other serializations using arrays of points"
• Appendix C.1: "PhotometryFilter.identifer" -> "PhotometryFilter.identifier"
• Appendix C.1: ' <PARAM name="magtype" ... value="VEGmag" datatype="int"/> ' - the datatype appears to be wrong; also according to the table on p.35 the value should be "VEGAmag" not "VEGmag".
• Appendix C.2: "service will contains some" -> "service will contain some"

OK to all. Many thanks for the careful review -- JesusSalgado - 2013-09-03

-- MarkTaylor, PierreFernique - 2013-07-18

Data Access Layer Working Group ( Patrick Dowler, Francois Bonnarel)

This is a nice document. I approve it for DAL. I have a few remarks

• possible Typos ? page 7 = "is that the metadata fields defined here WILL be included".
• possible Typo page 7 again "and the description of (the) how the units of the measurement"
• Fixed -- JesusSalgado - 2013-09-27
• Data Model Summary Table . PF Acces Metadata section. Should that also Include the transmissionPoint utypes ?

Transmission point utypes are in the table -- JesusSalgado - 2013-09-27

• Data Model Summary Table. PF Spectral and Time axis Characterization. Should it be called characterization or coverage ? Actually the concepts are analogous but the utypes there and those in characterization ObsCore are very different. So maybe coverage (also used in ressource metadata) is of wider extent.

Modified to coverage in the summary table -- JesusSalgado - 2013-09-27

• Data Model Summary Table. AsinHZeroPint.softeningParameter doesn't have the PhotCal prefix.

This is on purpose as this field only belongs to AsinHZeroPoint and not to the mother class PhotCal. It is not clear how to proceed

in the case of inheritance using the current utypes approach (probably solved if VO-DML or other data modeling language is assumed)

For the time being, I think this is the more proper approach (use the child class name as prefix for metadata present only in the child

but not in the mother) -- JesusSalgado - 2013-09-27

• VOTABLE Example Filter profile service. Three param have no utypes (Facility, ProfileReference, CalibrationReference"

These fields are not present in PhotDMv1-1. They should be, most probably, defined in ProvenanceDM. Although this DM is not a proper

standard, we prefer to maintain the fields without utypes until to have a formal definition (to prevent future deviations in the

utypes). In any case, fields with no clear standard utype could appear without it in the response. -- JesusSalgado - 2013-09-27

-- FrancoisBonnarel - 2013-09-22

Data Model Working Group ( _Jesus Salgado, Omar Laurino)

Approved-- JesusSalgado - 2013-09-09

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

Approved - AndreSchaaff - 2013-09-09

Registry Working Group ( _Gretchen Greene, Pierre Le Sidaner)

Approved -- GretchenGreene - 2013-09-20

Semantics Working Group ( _Norman Gray, Mireille Louys)

This datamodel is a central description for binding Photometric calibration of an observation to the coordinate system description of the Flux frame. It has great potential for re-usability for data products in the VO: not only spectra , but also images , spectral cubes, etc.

I approve the document -- MireilleLouys - 2013-09-25

Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Alberto Accomazzi, Francoise Genova)

Knowledge Discovery in Databases Interest Group ( George Djorgovski )

Theory Interest Group ( _Franck Le Petit, Rick Wagner)

Time Domain Interest Group (John Swinbank, Mike Fitzpatrick)