SODA erratum 3 proposal

[Dempsey, James (IM&T, Black Mountain)]

Hi François,

I’m pleased this has been clarified in VOTABLE as when reviewing the erratum text I was confused as to the intent of each value in the example.

Setting this back to a single minimum and maximum bound for the range parameter seems more readable to me. For my part, I agree with the rescoping of the erratum to add an explanation of the example and of course fixing the syntax.

Cheers,
James Dempsey
Senior Developer  |  CSIRO
james.dempsey at csiro.au<mailto:james.dempsey at csiro.au>  |  02 6214 2912


From: dal <dal-bounces at ivoa.net> on behalf of BONNAREL FRANCOIS <francois.bonnarel at astro.unistra.fr>
Date: Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 3:30 am
To: IVOA DAL <dal at ivoa.net>
Subject: Re: SODA erratum 3 proposal
Dear DAL followers,

     I wrote this erratum proposal ten days ago, following an old issue
raised first by Alberto Micol.
     At the same time there was a merged PR in VOTable
(https://github.com/ivoa-std/VOTable/pull/30)

      which apparently discards the need for the SODA erratum.

       See the discussion between Markus and me in VOTable issue 32v
(https://github.com/ivoa-std/VOTable/issues/32)

       So Markus suggests that for BAND interval MIN is the 1D array
minimal value of both the lower and higher bound of the interval
       and that MAX is the maximum value of the same two bounds.

       In such a  way that :
                    1 ) a 2D array MIN and MAX value attribute is not
required
                    2 ) we forget the idea to have MIN as the minimal
interval and MAX the maximum interval
         However interval is an xtype so we could have specific rules in
this case as stated by the new VOTable text. So ....
        Thoughts ?

        IN any case if we follow Markus, we still have to fix the wrong
tag </VALUE> and clarify the example meaning following the new text in
VOTable
So there will still be an erratum 3 on the same example
Cheers
FRançois
Le 23/01/2023 à 15:04, BONNAREL FRANCOIS a écrit :
> Dear all,
>
>     This is a proposal for an erratum of the SODA 1.0 specification.
>
> https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/SODA10Err3
>
>   Please check it and let's start the discussion.
>    I wonder if this is an erratum or a real change (for SODA 1.1).
>
>    I looked at VOTable, and although it seems reasonable, if I am not
> ignoring some rather hidden text or xsd, nothing seems to require that
> arraysize should follow the PARAM or FIELD arraysize.
>    I addition if we do this change there is another option (as
> mentioned in the associated github issue) related to the meaning of
> these MIN and MAX arrays. Are the two values in MIN (resp MAX)
> defining the minimum (resp maximum) length interval (which I find
> consistent with the definition of BAND in that case) or the range of
> possible values for the lower (resp higher) limits of the BAND interval.
>
> Cheers
>
> François
>
>
> Le 23/01/2023 à 07:46, BONNAREL FRANCOIS a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>     This is a proposal for an erratum of the SODA 1.0 specification.
>>
>> https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/SODA10Err2
>>
>>   Please check it for fast acceptance.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> François
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dal/attachments/20230204/f0849cc8/attachment-0001.htm>