STC ObservationLocation

[Rob Seaman]

Ed wrote:

>    We could add special software that allows one to drop location  
> or other elements after the distance of the object has been confirmed.

VOEvent has the notion of following up or superseding a prior  
packet.  Either of these could be used in the situation you  
describe.  With transients, one person's noise is another's signal,  
so I certainly would characterize the detection of such bursts from a  
planetary source as something devoid of research interest.

The issue with the observatory location is whether it should be  
required by STC in the case of a geocentric expression.  While this  
might be a good idea for the reasons outlined by Arnold, I personally  
think it should be optional (in this case) and left to the conscience  
- or experimental design - of the author of the packet.  In  
particular, as I've just said, in the case of revising previously  
reported geocentric coordinates, we already have a way to do that via  
follow-up.

As tempting as it is to try to mandate good usage, I think such  
efforts are doomed in general - and may be hard to define in  
particular.  One person's sloppy STC element may be another's lithe  
and elegant compromise with heinous observational or investigational  
constraints.

As Arnold says:

>> Can we close this discussion?

All in favor of an optional observatory location for geocentric  
coordinates?

Rob