[Units]

[Christophe Arviset]

Dear all

I agree with the two points as stated by Bob. That would mean that the 
UNITS doc will probably need more updates than other IVOA standards, but 
that is natural.

Cheers

Christophe

Robert Hanisch wrote:
> ---- Original message ----
>   
>> Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 13:13:10 +0200
>> From: Francois Ochsenbein <francois at vizier.u-strasbg.fr>  
>> Subject: Re: [Units]   
>> To: dal at ivoa.net, dm at ivoa.net
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Mireille,
>>
>> About your questions, in reverse order:
>>
>> 2. The document on Units shoud describe the generic units, meaning that
>>   something called 'unit' supplied by any of the VO protocols would
>>   have to be compatible with the document on units;
>>     
> I agree with this.  The units document should reflect common usage in the community, as end users will encounter data from many sources, most often in FITS format with FITS-convention units.
>
>   
>> 1. Individual protocols may restrict the units they accept to a subset
>>   of the generic units -- and then logically the list of acceptable
>>   units for a given protocol (say simDAP) should be specified in a
>>   section of the protocol document (simDAP).
>>     
> I would suggest just the opposite approach, i.e, to define a core, restricted set of unit representations that the various VO protocols are expected to incorporate.  I think this approach maximizes interoperability.  Should a protocol require units definitions not included in the core, that protocol could define an ancillary set (expressed, I would hope, following the same rules as for the core set).  If these additional units are of common value they could be added to the units document.  If they are peculiar to the protocol, their definitions could stay there.
>
> Bob
>
> - - - - -
>
>   
>> It becomes a be a problem if one of the protocols requires a unit
>> which is incompatible with the document on Units ; if it turns out
>> that very specific units have to be created for some services 
>> (I'm thinking e.g. to simulation data) the document on Units
>> should propose a way of creating and referring to new units
>> which do not collide with existing ones (what I called
>> 'user-defined units')
>>
>> Francois
>>
>>     
>>> Hi all,
>>> In the DM1 session, we had a discussion (too short) about Units,
>>> following the suggestion made by A. Micol on these same lists.
>>> The questions are :
>>> 1)should the IVOA protocols allow only a subset of the IVOA supported
>>> Units expressions ?
>>> If yes , who would volunteer to list up the wished units for each protocol?
>>> SIAv1,
>>> SIAv2
>>> SSA
>>> SimDAP
>>> SLAP
>>> others?
>>>
>>> 2) should these supported units sets published in protocols documents
>>> or in the Units draft?
>>>
>>> thanks for your comments / suggestions .
>>> Mireille, DM chair
>>>       
>> =======================================================================
>> Francois Ochsenbein    ------   Observatoire Astronomique de Strasbourg
>>   11, rue de l'Universite 67000 STRASBOURG  Phone: +33-(0)390 24 24 29
>> Email: francois at astro.u-strasbg.fr (France)    Fax: +33-(0)390 24 24 17
>> =======================================================================
>>     

-- 
Thanks in advance

Cheers

Christophe


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Christophe ARVISET                       Christophe.Arviset at esa.int

European Space Agency (ESA)
European Space Astronomy Centre (ESAC)
Science Operations Department
Science Archives and Computer Support Engineering Unit

P.O. Box 78
28691 Villanueva de la Canada                 Tel: +34 91 813 12 78
Madrid - SPAIN                                Fax: +34 91 813 13 08
-------------------------------------------------------------------