content, format, ctype, or xtype ?

[Paul Harrison]

On 2009-05 -13, at 20:56, Paul Harrison wrote:

>
> On 2009-05 -13, at 19:24, Patrick Dowler wrote:
>
>> So.... UCD?
>>
>> It looks like I object to everything but ucd: it allows one to say  
>> "this is a time". Maybe restriction is enough:
>>
>> MJD: DOUBLE <-> datatype="double" ucd="time"
>> ISO8601: TIMESTAMP <-> datatype="char" ucd="time"
>> STC-S: REGION or POINT <-> datatype="char" ucd="pos" ?
>>
>> Specifically for upload to a TAP service, if the ucd attribute was  
>> missing, the service would put the timstamp values into a VARCHAR  
>> column instead of a TIMESTAMP column. Some things might still work.  
>> If someone replies that there is a suitable UCD fragment for  
>> position (pos?) and energy (?) then maybe we just have to spell  
>> this out (specifically, the table in TAP 0.42, page 19 would be  
>> changed from VOTable:format to VOTable:ucd and we would specify UCD  
>> fragments that signify the content).
>>
>> PS-when I say ucd="time" I really mean the ucd attribute contains a  
>> "time" fragment. Can we make this precise enough?
>>
>
>
> Paul.Harrison at manchester.ac.uk
> I don't think that this covers all the bases, as there is also the  
> POS expressed as sexagesimal - but running with this idea, what  
> about a set of secondary UCD words format.MJD, format. ISO8601,  
> format.STC, format.hms, format.dms to be added to time.epoch etc.
>

I had not noticed that this was one of Francois' options - Doug too -  
we could be reaching a consensus!

Paul.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/dal/attachments/20090513/26193913/attachment-0003.html>