<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Markus, all<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 09/10/2021 à 07:43, Markus
Demleitner a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20211009054345.ll5tyxu5c7chq4jv@victor">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Dear François,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm really disappointed that nobody else get inside this
discussion. <br>
</p>
<p>Semantics terms in DataLink have to be thought with a wide
perspective if we want to extend the usage</p>
<p>But anyway, although I think it's useless to answer you I still
do it.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20211009054345.ll5tyxu5c7chq4jv@victor">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 07:06:31PM +0200, BONNAREL FRANCOIS wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Le 07/10/2021 à 15:24, Markus Demleitner a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Based on this, could you then explain as clearly and concisely as you
can why VEP-006 impedes that use case?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
A user discovers a calibrated image (HST, ESO, etc...) . With DataLink
(#this or #preview) she has a look to the image and want to see how the
uncalibrated data and the flat field looked like to understand some of the
features. DataLink provides a link to the #progenitor and also (by some
record the semantics of which cannot be anymore "calibration or #flat) to
the flat field, etc... used to calibrate this progenitor.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
...but for this use case there is no need to distinguish between what
you call a progenitor (i.e., non-calibration part of provenance) and
calibration files applied. Right?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course it's needed to make this distinction. Even to obtain
the right caption for the display. <br>
</p>
<p>Not to speak about possible reprocessing<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20211009054345.ll5tyxu5c7chq4jv@victor">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Plus: A client can already do that, no? If you think not: What do
you see missing?</pre>
</blockquote>
What would be the semantics term able to drive that? Progenitor
alone is not : this, at least, as been discussed extensively (see
below references)<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20211009054345.ll5tyxu5c7chq4jv@victor">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Client software is intended to display all these images (science and
calibration) together for checking and comparison. Moreover an advanced
version could poropose some kind of reprocessing of progenitor.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Not that that has any relationship to VEP-006 at all, but we have
provenance for a detailed description of how the various pieces of
the provenance chain play together; we certainly do not want to
re-model that in the datalink vocabulary. It's been compicated
enough to do that modelling once.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course it is a very interesting use case of DataLink to
provide a link towards a full (or last step) ivoa provenance
record.</p>
<p>What #calibration-applied provides is a kind of "poor-lady"
provenance which only links used datasets without any insight on
the activity and agents involved</p>
<p>DataLink in itself has a poor but efficient way to characterize
relationship between #this item and the target of the link <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20211009054345.ll5tyxu5c7chq4jv@victor">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Where VEP-006 "impedes" that is by letting the "already applied" use case
orphan. We have no more terms to qualify the calibration files used this
way. With the new definition we can only apply the calibration files to the
discovered image itself (#this in DataLink), and not to the progenitor
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
As stated multiple times, VEP-006 is entirely unconcerned with this
problem.
First, we don't have any such links now, so nothing is orphaned at
this point. And I maintain it would be prudent to wait until we
actually have such links, as the motivation of people publishing such
links will inform us if what we think is sensible behaviour (the
"pragmatics") actually is in the view of the data providers.
Second, the current #progenitor is clear that if there were any
"Calibration applied" links, they would be covered by its concept; see
its description: "data resources that were used to create this
dataset (e.g. input raw data)". You may not like the concept or its
label, but we have VEP-009 to discuss that. </pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Let's go back to VEP-009</p>
<p>Some references <br>
</p>
<p>Paul Harrison May the 5th</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">The description of #progenitor in the RDF is just "data resources that were used to create this dataset (e.g. input raw data)”, and this combined with the disjointness of #calibration leads me to interpret #progenitor as being “science data” progenitor. I don’t see anything written in <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ivoa.net/documents/DataLink/20150617/REC-DataLink-1.0-20150617.html">https://www.ivoa.net/documents/DataLink/20150617/REC-DataLink-1.0-20150617.html</a> that makes this interpretation invalid.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Mireille , March the 23rd</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;">One more reason :
#progenitor should be reserved to designate the data in transformation through various steps within a pipeline.
this applies to the data stream...
calibration, configuration, parameter sets have a distinct nature with respect to the data processing.
The two categories should not be mixed, in my view.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>Stephane Erard March the 25th</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">The use cas I have in mind is a spectral parameter map built from many spectral cubes, but I think the conclusion is identical to Mireille’s example.
In any case, I would certainly reserve #progenitor to identify calibrated products used to build a derived product. If this also links to calibration files, it will become difficult to identify the building pieces - at this stage, I’m no longer interested in details of calibration.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>Not to speak about the solution Pat proposed me in a private
email (see my email last monday for details). I have some,
concerns about it but this is the part I fooly agree with<br>
</p>
<p>Recursive usage of DataLink to provide both science data and
calibration-used data</p>
<p>#progenitor link followed by #this link to get science data</p>
<p>#progenitor link followed by #calibration to get calibration data
associated to these rawr science data<br>
</p>
<p>The consequence of this is that #progenitor itself are science
data</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>BY the way, ESO ObsTAP service is using #progenitor exclusively
for science data in a rawer status.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20211009054345.ll5tyxu5c7chq4jv@victor">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
The relevant point here is: VEP-006 in no way predetermines whether
we do nothing at all about "Calibration applied" (full disclosure: I
think that's the right choice), whether we create a child of
#progenitor (perhaps after fixing its label) or whether we change its
meaning and create a sibling of it. Or whether we do something
entriely different, depending on what the pragmatics turns out to be.
If you disagree on this assessment: How would VEP-006 influence this
deliberation?</pre>
</blockquote>
VEP-006 is not proposing new terms it's changing the definition of
old terms in a sense that calibration-applied is now forbidden.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20211009054345.ll5tyxu5c7chq4jv@victor">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
So, again, please let's not mix up all these different discussions.
We will never get anywhere in semantics if we do.
Everyone but François: Do you, as François alluded to, still have
concerns with VEP-006?.
If not, François, can you at least agree to: "I think VEP-006 is
wrong, but I'll not veto it"?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Exactly this : if nobody interested I give up. But I think we
will encounter consistency issues in a near future if we don't
discuss the consequences of this major change of definition for
#calibration.</p>
<p>Regards</p>
<p>François<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20211009054345.ll5tyxu5c7chq4jv@victor">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
-- Markus
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>