Vocabularising dataproduct_type

[Molinaro, Marco]

Hi Markus,
thank you for the clarification on the first two points
I raised (obscore+EPN & SimpleDALRegExt-attached reviewing).

About...

Il giorno mar 10 mar 2020 alle ore 13:14 Markus Demleitner <
msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de> ha scritto:


> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:56:36AM +0100, Molinaro, Marco wrote:
> > I wonder also if some thoughts on the usage of the term "cube" applies
> > here, because in my mind using "cube" alongside (e.g.) "image" at the
> > same level in a vocabulary mixes up format and content concepts (I know
> > this already works in obscore).
>
> Yes -- while I think honing the definitions is a good idea, I guess
> we should try to keep the concepts (as in: the set of real-world
> things ["the extension"]) as they are actually being used.
>
> Saying that a cube is three or more dimensions may be a bit
> arbitrary, but I'd argue it's a suitable reflection of the use of
> that term in the community -- and then it's, indeed, a thing roughly
> on the same level as an image.
>
> But you're right, we are mixing dimensionality (cube) with properties
> of the observable (image) with properties of the axes (time series,
> spectrum).  In an ideal world, these would be considered separately.
> But that's not how people right now think about data sets, and I'm
> not sure I can see a major problem with this.
>

Maybe you're right, usage it's there.
Still for filtering/discovery it may raise issues in the future
and we're going registry here, which is slightly more difficult
than dataset annotation to change later on.
I mean, if I want a specific "axis" or "observable" cube, I can
rely on o_ucd or else, true...but not in the registry.
But maybe I'm getting ahead of a non existent issue here...


> And, also from this thread, Laurent's point:
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 11:47:48 +0100, Laurent MICHEL wrote:
> > I'm not sure that catalog data sets fit well within the definition
> > of the measurements.  A catalog is not necessarily derived from a
> > dataset (Obcore P29 makes that distinction)
>
> So... what do you suggest to fix this?  The definition I'm currently
> proposing is
>
>   A set of derived measurements obtained from a particular original
>   dataset.  The prototypical example would be a list of sources
>   extracted from an image.
>
> What would you like to see changed?
>

Does it have to be "original dataset" _singular_?
   Marco


>
>          -- Markus
>


-- 
Marco Molinaro
INAF - Istituto Nazionale di AstroFisica
Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste
email marco.molinaro at inaf.it
tel. +39 040 3199 152
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dal/attachments/20200310/67d149b6/attachment.html>