datalink-terms

[Arnold Rots]

A variation on what Markus propose for provenance:
It would be useful if one could distinguish between
an original instance and a mirrored instance.
"mirror of" would be needed and should point to the original.
Note that mirroring is not the same as "derived from",
so one does need a separate term.

  - Arnold

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold H. Rots                                          Chandra X-ray
Science Center
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory                   tel:  +1 617 496
7701
60 Garden Street, MS 67                                      fax:  +1 617
495 7356
Cambridge, MA 02138
arots at cfa.harvard.edu
USA
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Markus Demleitner <
msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:

> Hi Pat,
>
> Thanks for putting together this list.
>
> What I think is missing so far is the provenance axis.  For instance,
> I'd like to express in a datalink for split-order Echelle spectrum
> where the merged order is found and vice versa.  Also, without a raw
> file the calibration files we already descibe aren't terribly useful.
>
> Let me propose #derivation as a top-level label for the merged-order
> file in the split-order datalink.  I can't see myself liking
> #predecessor or #ancestor for the files some reduced data set is
> derived from, so better ideas  are solicited.
>
> Having #predecessor and #derivation (or whatever) would, I'd argue,
> do for now.  Further details would be up to a proper provenance data
> model or actual software using those wonders.
>
> And then:
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:46:46AM +0100, Norman Gray wrote:
> > That's perfectly true -- there's no semantics attached to the
> > names.  However it may be useful for debugging if nothing else, if
> > the names echo the structure, thus #preview, #preview-image,
> > #preview-plot and so on.
>
> While in general I don't like giving terms structure, in *this
> particular* instance (preview) I believe Norman is right.  "image"
> and "plot" are very generic, and reserving them for previews doesn't
> sound like a good idea to me.
>
> There's a difference to the remaining terms, e.g., for bias, dark,
> and flat -- these are terms that immediately have to do with
> calibrating images.  And a cutout simply is some sort of processing
> product.  However, not every sort of image is a preview, and hence it
> should be preview-image, previewImage, or preview_image
>
> $(#=% B ()%
>
> Sorry, I have to close here, people just drilled a hole in my ceiling
> to arrest me for needlessly instigating a syntax debate.  As
> mitigating circumstance let me close with saying I'm for Norman's
> original preview-image and preview-plot.
>
> And that I don't think any of the other terms need prefixes.
>
> Cheers,
>
>          Markus
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dal/attachments/20141021/ae91df9c/attachment.html>