SSA working draft (fwd)

[Randall Thompson]

Hi Doug,
    Having valid examples would be a nice "detail" to have
available before beginning test implementations. I have
always found information in the examples that is not
contained elsewhere.  In any case, here are a few more
comments. Some may also be considered details, but I
did leave out comments regarding typos and references
to non-existent sections.
 
UNITS - Would it be useful to follow the units conventions
described in the OGIP 93-001 document as is done in the
SDM paper?

REQUEST - I would still like to see a default value
(e.g., "queryData") defined for REQUEST. I suspect the
queryData operation will comprise the majority of SSA
requests and defining a default value  should not conflict
with adding any additional values in the future.
This would allow SSA requests to be as simple as:
http://www.myvo.org/ssa?POS=22.4,17.2
By not allowing a default, service providers will presumably
be expected to return some sort of annoying error message
if REQUEST is not included.

APERTURE - It appears this parameter has been redefined
and no longer applies to existing spectral data. If it is referring
to a numerical extraction slit however, a rectangular shape
would still seem a reasonable option.

COMPRESS - Are there any restrictions in the types of
comrpessions to be allowed (e.g., is hcompress)?

Randy


Doug Tody wrote:

> Hi Randy -
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Randall Thompson wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>   In starting to review version 0.97, I find several discrepancies
>> between the  metadata descriptions in sections 3.3.7-3.3.12,
>> and the examples listed in Appendix A and B, particularly in the
>> utype values. I would hope the examples could be corrected before
>> V1.0 and would include all the designated "mandatory" entries.
>>   I hope to have more comments soon.
>
>
> You are right, the examples in the appendices of the protocol document
> have not yet been updated, and of course will be for the V1.0 document.
> However this is a detail, and the protocol document is complete and
> internally consistent with the DM for the discussion of the overall
> interface and the queryData operation in particular, which is the
> core of the protocol, and this is where comments are currently needed.
>
>     - Doug