Data Models in Kyoto

[Tony Linde]

Hi Jonathan,

> I'm hoping we can move the Fri session to Wed. so I can 
> attend the UCD session.

Can you make sure it doesn't clash with the Registry session: I think it is
important for registry people to be involved in the discussions of the
Catalog dm.

Thanks,
Tony. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dm at eso.org [mailto:owner-dm at eso.org] On Behalf Of 
> Jonathan McDowell
> Sent: 14 April 2005 03:03
> To: dm at ivoa.net
> Subject: Data Models in Kyoto
> 
> Hello Data Model Group,
> 
> It's time to plan activities for Kyoto (actually it's well 
> past time, but I just got to it now). 
> 
> We have at least the following things to discuss
>   Spectrum/SED
>   Characterization
>     (including STC/Quantity merger, 3D IFU discussion, UTYPES, Theory)
>   STC (now at Proposed Rec)
>   Catalog
>   Quantity
> 
> I know that Rots (STC), Micol (Char UTYPEs), Osuna 
> (Catalogs), me/Tody (SSAP/SED), Bonnarel/Louys 
> (Characterization), Igor (Char 3D) will all be there, so we 
> have a pretty good collection except for Brian - you're not 
> coming, B? Maybe you can give me a few pages to present on 
> your package and how it differs from the CDS scheme.
> 
> We have three DM sessions scheduled
> of two hours each and I propose
>  Tues  pm  DAL/DM joint session (SSAP/SED)
>  Thurs pm  Characterization and related issues     Clashes 
> with Registry, Grid-Web
>  Fri   am  STC, and Catalog/Quantity               Clashes 
> with UCD, Grid-Web
> 
> I'm hoping we can move the Fri session to Wed. so I can 
> attend the UCD session.
> 
> I solicit presentations on all these topics, and suggestions 
> for other topics to be covered.
> 
> 
> Characterization:
> 
> I've been catching up somewhat on the recent traffic on 
> Characterization, and would like to congratulate all 
> concerned on the recent work which is now at the level of 
> detail we need. Both the CDS and Maryland approaches to 
> Characterization look promising, but I haven't managed to 
> internalize them at the level of detail needed to compare and 
> contrast. So I'd ask both groups to look at the others' work 
> and comment on differences and similarities. One issue that 
> does need to be addressed, as Alberto mentioned in his work 
> on UTYPES (which I liked very much), is whether we cut the problem as
> 
>  Char/TypeOfCharacterization/CharacterizationAxis 
>                e.g.  Char/Bounds/Spatial, 
> Char/Location/Temporal or  
> Char/CharacterizationAxis/TypeOfCharacterization 
>                e.g.  Char/Spatial/Bounds, Char/Temporal/Bounds
> 
> Now the CDS takes the second approach, except that the 
> Location uses STCAstroCoords which I had understood to be 
> something that includes all axes, i.e. the first approach... 
> so I worry there is an inconsistency here.
> 
> Looking forward to seeing many of you in Kyoto
> 
>  - Jonathan
>