Obscore 1.1 errata page

[Laurent Michel]

Markus,

1) OK, I'll split the page in 2 errata
2) Is your footnote [1] suggesting to go back from meta.ref.ivoid to meta.curation;meta.ref.uri?

Cheers

Laurent

Le 12/12/2018 à 16:55, Markus Demleitner a écrit :
> Hi DM,
> 
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:04:09PM +0100, Laurent Michel wrote:
>> The errata page for Obscore 1.1 has been open:
>>
>>       https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/ObsCore-1_1-Errata
>>
>> The erratum 1 contains 6 items. 5 have been discussed on the list and the
>> 6th (missing facily_name) has been detected during the document review.
>> Please consider reviewing it and discuss it on this list.
> 
> While I think I'm ok with most of the issues raised (I'd propose a
> different URI UCD, but I don't care enough to quarrel), I'd say the
> form of the Erratum needs to be substantially improved -- remember,
> Errata essentially become part of the REC, and implementors will read
> this with the expectation of clearly learning what's wrong and what
> needs to be fixed (and they'll not appreciate language like "This
> looks like simply a typo", I suppose).
> 
> I'd therefore suggest to split this erratum into at least two
> separate errata; I could well see:
> 
> (a) Invalid UCDs
> 
> (b) Inconsistent Metadata in Table 5
> 
> Further more, the Erratum (or future Errate) would, I think, win a
> lot if it (they) followed the recommended top-level structure
> (DocStd, p.  12), viz,
> 
> Rationale
> 
> Change in Standard
> 
> Impact Assessement
> 
> -- for (b), the "Change in Standard" section should probably be just
> the entire Table 5 with changes marked in, perhaps, red.  For (a),
> I'd say something like[1]
> 
>    Rationale
> 
>    ObsCore gives mandatory UCDs for the fields that make up the schema.
>    Unfortunately, while constructing the UCDs of some columns, invalid
>    or overspecific UCDs were chosen.
> 
>    This concerns
> 
>    (a) obs_publisher_did and publisher_id columns; both are required to
>    have meta.ref.uri;meta.curation.  This is invalid by the UCD
>    standard, as meta.curation is a primary word.
> 
>    (b) o_stat_error is required to have stat.error;phot.flux.  Since
>    ObsCore tables can also contain products in which the observables are
>    not flux-like, this is overspecific.
> 
> 
>    Change in Standard
> 
>    On PDF p. 56 (Table 7), in the row for obs_publisher_did, replace
>    meta.ref.uri;meta.curation with meta.curation;meta.ref.uri.
> 
>    On PDF p. 58 (Table 7), in the row for publisher_id, replace
>    meta.ref.uri;meta.curation with meta.curation;meta.ref.uri.
> 
>    On PDF p. 59 (Table 7), in the row for o_stat_error, replace
>    stat.error;phot.flux with stat.error.
> 
>    On PDF p. 62, in the FIELD definition for obs_publisher_did, replace
>    meta.ref.uri;meta.curation with meta.curation;meta.ref.uri.
> 
> 
>    Impact Assessment
> 
>    ObsCore clients normally use column names or perhaps utypes to
>    identify data model members.  The change of the UCDs proposed here
>    should not impact them.
> 
>    Clients not aware of ObsCore will profit from the proposed change;
>    for obs_publisher_did and publisher_id, they will no longer produce
>    diagnostics for invalid UCDs, and for os_stat_error they will not be
>    mislead any more.
> 
> Or so -- future implementors will be grateful.
> 
>            -- Markus
> 
> 
> [1] I've put in meta.curation;meta.ref.uri instead of meta.ref.ivorn (or
> ivoid, whatever) -- for one, it's more specific, and for a second,
> in practice people put all kinds of things there, not just ivoids.
> That's particularly true for the pubDID, and I totally see that a DOI
> is at least as good as an ivoid.
> 

-- 
jesuischarlie/Tunis/Paris/Bruxelles/Berlin

Laurent Michel
SSC XMM-Newton
Tél : +33 (0)3 68 85 24 37
Fax : +33 (0)3 )3 68 85 24 32
Université de Strasbourg <http://www.unistra.fr>
Observatoire Astronomique
11 Rue de l'Université
F - 67200 Strasbourg