<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">This errata looks fine to me, except:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">In the very last sentence with advice for query writers, "obs_id is not null" will omit results which is likely not what people want. Instead, they just need to treat NULL obs_id as not equal to another NULL obs_id, which is normal database semantics for NULL values. Thus, NULL obs_id(s) always indicates distinct observations.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div>--<br></div><div>Patrick Dowler<br></div>Canadian Astronomy Data Centre<br></div>Victoria, BC, Canada<br></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 at 08:41, Markus Demleitner <<a href="mailto:msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de">msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Dear DAL, dear DM,<br>
<br>
[followups again suggested to DAL only]<br>
<br>
Given that the discussion on the non-NULL requirement on obscore's<br>
obs_id column did not show a convincing need for the requirement and<br>
it is an implementation burden in particular in the presence of<br>
validators (see the erratum's rationale), I've written up a proposed<br>
erratum for Obscore 1.1; see<br>
<br>
<a href="https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/ObsCore-1_1-Erratum-3" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/ObsCore-1_1-Erratum-3</a><br>
<br>
Does anyone have major qualms with this? Have I perhaps missed <br>
material in the Obscore document that would also need changes?<br>
<br>
-- Markus<br>
</blockquote></div>