Obscore 1.1 errata page

[Markus Demleitner]

Dear Laurent,

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 02:22:26PM +0100, Laurent Michel wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:48:42AM +0100, Laurent Michel wrote:
> > > 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?
> 
> To me, it's an important change in the model.
> Those 2 fields are clearly defined (in the text) as being IVOA identifiers not URIs.
> Modifying this is a bit more than fixing an UCD inconstancy, this changes
> the scope of these 2 identifiers (obs_publisher_did and publisher_id)
> I would say it's another topic.


Well, I'd say the move from meta.ref.uri;meta.curation to 
meta.curation;meta.ref.uri is smaller that going all the way to
meta.ref.ivorn.


On the other hand, I'm positively surprised that obs_publisher_did in
practice actually contains IVOIDs in the services that have them
(look for yourself:

import pyvo

for svc in pyvo.regsearch(datamodel="obscore"):
	try:
		res = svc.service.run_sync("SELECT TOP 1 obs_publisher_did"
			" FROM ivoa.obscore WHERE obs_publisher_did IS NOT NULL")
		if res:
			print(res[0]["obs_publisher_did"])
	except:
		pass
)

Incidentally, for publisher_id, this script hasn't found an non-NULL
ones at all in the current VO -- which makes me suspect that no
client will have a look at the column in the first place, which
probably means we could operate with impunity here.

         -- Markus