Coordinates model - Working draft.

[François Bonnarel]

Le 15/01/2019 à 16:30, CresitelloDittmar, Mark a écrit :
> Markus,
>
> I haven't taken the time to digest this fully, but this paragraph 
> struck me.
> You seem to be conflating the model and its annotation too directly.
> The model is not repeating serialization information, but representing 
> the concepts.
> A physical quantity has these concepts
>   * it is continuous, or integral (datatype)
>   * it has units
>   * it has a value.
> These are serialized in VOTable as a PARAM
> The PARAM is annotated as a Quantity type.
>
> I agree that it is important to know what the effect on serialization 
> is.. that is why we have example files which clearly show these elements.
> But the model is not tied to any serialization format. The fact that 
> VOTable has a param which includes value, unit and type, does not mean
> that the model should not also have something with those features.  It 
> means that at this fine-grain level, they align (which they should).
+1 !!
>
> Also, the model is showing the type of the concept (eg RealQuantity 
> has a floating point value, so is continuous). This is true whether 
> the VOTable has the value serialized as a float (10.0), integer (10) 
> or string ("10").  Any should be valid so long as it can be translated 
> to a RealQuantity.
+111
>
> Mark
>
> PS: the scope and requirements for the model are listed in the document.
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:38 AM Markus Demleitner 
> <msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de 
> <mailto:msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de>> wrote:
>
>
>     Anyway, to get this away from abstract speculation: Are there actual
>     use cases that would profit from repeating type/unit/value
>     serialisation in the data model?  If so, perhaps there are better,
>     more layer-respecting solutions for them?
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dm/attachments/20190116/9b536930/attachment.html>