<div dir="ltr">Hi all,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">Il giorno mer 24 ott 2018 alle ore 11:48 Mark Taylor <<a href="mailto:M.B.Taylor@bristol.ac.uk">M.B.Taylor@bristol.ac.uk</a>> ha scritto:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Markus Demleitner wrote:<br>
<br>
> An alternative would be to take ASCII MOCs to DALI. In the end, DALI<br>
> will probably have to say something about MOCs anyway, as we'll need<br>
> an xtype=MOC if we want to (interoperably) exchange MOCs in VOTable<br>
> columns (which I want pretty much). If we touch DALI, it might be a<br>
> little less work if DALI described the format itself (we'd touch only<br>
> one standard, not two of them).<br>
> <br>
> Opinions?<br>
<br>
A general point: I am not convinced it's a good idea to make DALI<br>
list all the xtypes we care about, since requiring a DALI update<br>
when inventing an xtype elswhere in the standards landscape<br>
introduces a hurdle that is IMHO unnecessarily painful -<br>
this MOC thing is a case in point.<br>
<br>
I agree that a central list of known xtypes is a useful thing to<br>
have, but it could be in a Note outside of the standards process<br>
or even (my vote) a wiki page.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I tend to agree with Mark on the xtypes list.</div><div>Would a vocabulary-like solution work?</div><div> </div><div>Cheers,</div><div> Marco</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
--<br>
Mark Taylor Astronomical Programmer Physics, Bristol University, UK<br>
<a href="mailto:m.b.taylor@bris.ac.uk" target="_blank">m.b.taylor@bris.ac.uk</a> +44-117-9288776 <a href="http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>