Spectrum Data Model RFC
This document will act as
RFC centre for the
Spectrum Data Model 1.01 Proposed Recommendation.
Review period: 16 May 2007 to 12 Jun 2007 (still open)
In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your
WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment.
Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list,
dm@ivoa.net.
Comments
- First sample comment (by BrunoRino): ...
- Response (by authorname): ...
- AndreaPreiteMartinez - 19 Jun 2007
- I have revised the UCDs in Tables 1, 2 and 3. The revised tables can be found here. Note that rows with changed UCDs are in bold+italic.
- Pag.23: erase sentence "My solution for brightness... "
- Pag.23 last line: change with "Note: we propose for the next version of the IVOA REC UCD-list to (a) change the flag of pos.eq from S to Q, (b) add two new words em.start, em.end to indicate the lower/start and upper/end boundaries of a spectral interval (as already done for the time axis)"
Andrea,
I don't like the fact that you propose the same UCD for energy flux
density and photon number flux density, and the same UCD for polarized
flux and total flux, and the same UCD for observed flux and for source
intensity per unit emission solid angle. These are different physical
concepts, in some cases they have the same units and I REALLY need
different UCDs to describe them to users - this is exactly what UCDs are
for. I want to avoid using units to distinguish since this is of limited
reliability ( e.g. source intensity as described below has the same
units as a surface brightness but is a very different thing)
and since it's a difference in CONCEPT not a difference in UNIT
that is key here.
Concept My new proposal Your proposal
Energy flux vs energy phot.flux.density;em.energy phot.flux.density;em.energy
Number flux vs energy phot.flux.density;em.energy,phys.photon phot.flux.density;em.energy
or phot.flux.number;em.energy
Flux density (vs wl) phot.flux.density;em.wl phot.flux.density;em.wl
Polarized flux (vs wl) phot.flux.density;em.wl,phys.polarization phot.flux.density;em.wl
Flux density (vs wl) phot.flux.density;em.wl phot.flux.density;em.wl
Source intensity phys.luminosity; em.wl,phys.angArea phot.flux.density;em.wl
Flux density phot.flux.density phot.flux.density
Brightness temperature phot.flux.density; phys.temperature phot.flux.density
Aperture area phys.area phys.area
Effective area phys.area;phys.transmission phys.area
Continuum-only vs wl phot.flux.density;em.wl,spect.continuum phot.flux.density,spect.continuum
Continuum-only vs freq phot.flux.density;em.freq,spect.continuum phot.flux.density,spect.continuum
Can you (1) explain what is wrong with my proposals (ok the first one uses
a so-far-nonexistent UCD I agree, the others seem legal to me) and
(2) provide alternatives that do not lose these distinctions?
I have a few other issues with your list vs mine:
Why is src.var.amplitude;arith.ratio not acceptable for
the variability as fraction of mean? To say that this
should have the same UCD as the actual amplitude is
losing valuable discriminatory power.
What is wrong with meta.ucd and meta.unit for e.g.
SpatialAxis.ucd, unit?
With e.g.
StatError you suggest
"stat.error;em" while I suggested "stat.error;em.wl" or
"stat.error;em.freq" etc. Isn't it better to specify here, so that
software can use the UCD to tell which is being given?
Why don't you like: em.wl;obs.atmos for Air Wavelength? I would really
like to be able to distinguish it from vacuum wavelength. How can I tell
the client (user) that air wavelengths are being used?
- thanks,
Jonathan
- GaryFuller - 19 Jun 2007
- Does the model allow for double sideband spectra? That is spectra for which each pixel can correspond to two different frequencies or wavelengths? This is a fairly common situation in the mm and submm.
- More generally what about the issue of describing how to convert between two different spectral axes, for example in the dsb case the upper and lower sideband frequency?
- Is there support for non-uniform spectral (and temporal) axes?
- In derived data fields signal-to-noise ratio seems a poorly defined quantity as it depends on what signal, spectral feature, is of interest to a particular user. A value for the rms noise level on the other hand would be very useful but doesn't seem to be in the model.
Gary:
We discussed the double sideband spectrum case but decided that
it complicated the model too much for version 1. We'll revisit
this in future, and for now you just have to pick one sideband as the
nominal frequency, maybe providing two Spectrum instances, one for
each sideband. We acknowledge this is a limitation, as is
the inability to represent two different spectra axes in a
single instance.
The S/N is a bit vague, but was requested by some data providers
for who a single target object is the norm. There is no rms noise, but
there is a 'typical (1 sigma) error' in
StatError which does much the
same thing. We may add rms in a later rev but not this one.
We do, however, support non-uniform axes, since each spectral coordinate
is listed explicitly.
Jonathan,
1) first of all, a general consideration: if we miss an ucd-word for expressing a given quantity, then let’s create the corresponding new ucd-word.
2) as an alternative, we can agree that e.g. phot.flux.density;em.wl (or freq or energy) indicates the flux density per unit wavelength (or frequency, or energy) : no syntax problem (valid syntax
), but cumbersome if you want to add other modifiers/qualifiers (em.opt, stat.max,...). What I do not like in the form phot.flux.density;em.wl is the use of a quantity (em.wl) as a modifier/qualifier of the first quantity (phot.flux.density).
In this case I prefer going to point (1) above, and re-present the proposal (see Victoria 2006) of adding:
phot.flux.density.perFreq,
phot.flux.density.perWave,
phot.flux.density.perEnergy, ..
phot.flux.photon.per*, ..
phot.flux.brTemperature, ..
phot.intensity.perWave ..
So, phot.flux.density;em.wl;spect.continuum will become phot.flux.density.perWave;spect.continuum
About Polarized Flux: I don’t understand the problem. I would have added an additional attribute for the degree of polarization or the fraction of polarized flux.
the same concern applies to phys.area;phys.transmission: let’s go to phys.area.effective
src.amplitude;arith.ratio : you are right
SpatialAxis.ucd, unit: I took out meta.ucd, meta.unit for uniformity with the other axes. You can replace them, adding them also to TimeAxis .
stat.error;em : yes, if a * is legal in your context, you can write stat.error;em* (but not meaning all the em-word branch! )
em.wl;obs.atmos: I prefer em.wl.air.
3) in order to avoid confusion in multi-word ucds, I suggest also to introduce
stat.error.lower instead of stat.error;stat.min
stat.error.upper instead of stat.error;stat.max
Ciao, Andrea
Comments from the Working Group Chairs and Interest Group Chairs
Chairs should add their comments under their name.
Marc Allen (Applications WG)
Christophe Arviset (TCG vice Chair)
Matthew Graham (Grid & Web Services WG)
Bob Hanisch (Data Curation & Preservation IG)
Gerard Lemson (Theory IG)
Mireille Louys (Data Models WG)
Keith Noddle (Data Access Layer WG)
Francois Ochsenbein (VOTable WG)
Pedro Osuna (VOQL WG)
Ray Plante (Resource Registry WG)
Andrea Priete-Martinez (Semantics WG)
Roy Williams (VOEvent WG)