<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Markus, all<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Following your recommendation I opened a new thread for the
TimeDomain/observationof a source use case discussion</p>
<p>Please answer there for that discussion</p>
<p>Now below I focus on the sibling thing.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 20/12/2019 à 08:34, Markus
Demleitner a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20191220073420.z3tzuzy2d4ig5p6z@victor">
<pre wrap="">Dear DAL,
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:17:25PM +0100, François Bonnarel wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> * When I proposed VEP0001 immediately after Groningen Interop I could
not imagine that such a controversy discussion would occur.
o Before considering the use case we have I would like to go back
to the current usages of DataLink I know.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Of course we need to work out how we will cover the "Figure out SAMP
Target" use case in Datalink.</pre>
</blockquote>
Well not only SAMP, but "client behavior control". sending it to
another tool via SAMP is only one of the possibilities. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20191220073420.z3tzuzy2d4ig5p6z@victor">
<pre wrap=""> However, donning my semantics hat I'd
be grateful if we could keep this effort separate from evaluating
#sibling -- the two questions got entangled by accident and are
really orthogonal to each other: SAMP target finding applies just as
well to #this, #progenitor, or #derivative. Also, if we find we do
want to use semantics for SAMP target finding, the additional terms
can be introduced independently of #sibling as such.
So... it would be great if people could indicate support for or
distaste with #sibling (both the concept and the term), as well as
possible changes or improvements, in this thread, while ideally
moving the SAMP target finding discussion to a separate thread.
That, in particular, is a friendly gesture towards future readers:
You see, I would like to link this thread from VEP-003's discussion
section, and when our future colleagues try to figure out what we
were thinking when making #sibling, they will be grateful if they
didn't have to read through a lot of essentially unrelated discussion
on Datalink proper.
Thanks,
Markus
...who wishes you all a peaceful and refreshing holiday season...
</pre>
</blockquote>
I go back to VEP-003<br>
<br>
<pre wrap=""><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">New Term: sibling
Action: Addition
Label: Sibling Data
Description: Data products derived from the same progenitor as #this.
This could be a lightcure for an object catalog derived from repeated
observations, the dataset processed using a different pipeline, or the
like.
Used-in:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://dc.g-vo.org/gaia/q2/tsdl/dlmeta?ID=ivo://org.gavo.dc/%7E?gaia/q2/199286482883072/BP">http://dc.g-vo.org/gaia/q2/tsdl/dlmeta?ID=ivo://org.gavo.dc/~?gaia/q2/199286482883072/BP</a>
This is GAVO's rendition of the Gaia DR2 epoch photometry, where
users retrieve a time series in a specific band; the time series
in the other bands are the siblings of that.
Rationale:
It is fairly common in complex pipelines that multiple data products
result from a single observation. Often, this is true even in a
single pipeline step, and hence the data products are not in a
progenitor-derivation relationship. Still, researchers will want to
know about these data products; for instance, while exploring a source
in Gaia, a quick way to access epoch photometry or the RP/BP spectra
is obviously valuable; such artefacts are not really progenitors of
the catalog entry, though. In such cases, #sibling (or perhaps one of
its future child terms) should be used.
Clients should offer #sibling links in a context of scientific
exploitation of the dataset (as opposed to, say, debugging).</pre>
</blockquote>
If I compare this to the initial VEP-001 "associated-data" proposal and to the use case exposed in the other thread
I wonder if "sibling" is the right word.
I'm not sure we can always identify a common progenitor for what I called the "Main" and what I called the "Target"
(see the other thread for what I mean there) in the use cases VEP-001 was supposed to solve.
That's why instead of "associated_data" or "sibling" I proposed "Observation_Result_of_source".
This of course excludes the use case where both the Main and the Target are datasets.
So does everybody prefer "sibling" ?
Cheers
François
</pre>
</body>
</html>