ADQL XMATCH

[Marco Molinaro]

Hi all,
thanks, Mark, for pointing out the summary slide you presented in Sydney.
Again, it gives a good view of what we're looking for at this stage
(please, don't get annoyed with me if I bounce back again to the - minimal?
- topic).
I do like Laurent's suggestions and agree with Grégory's view.

Am I right if I say that we're converging towards a
- XMATCH seems not a good name
- we have to work out what we can do with DISTANCE given it already exists
in the 2.0 version of the REC
- point vs ra/dec should both work but overload as to be nicely specified
(again, requires changes wrt 2.0)
- binary versus float function type
?

[my opinion is that we cannot touch what DISTANCE in ADQL already is, but
we may experiment the overload solution defining it in the document]

Not to a solution yet, but at least defining the goal?
And this was for the 2.1 (minor) revision.

Afterwards we have to better cope with the real intent of a cross match,
not only with the "cheap" solution to smooth what is probably in-between
and errata and a feature change in the current specification.

May I ask if a specific session/sub-session on this may be of interest in
Cape Town? (if you plan to participate)

Cheers,
    Marco
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dal/attachments/20160211/fba4fc1d/attachment.html>