Measurements model

[Laurent MICHEL]

Dear DMers,

I agree with the MCD approach for model validation.
To me, a model is valid when data it has been design for, can be mapped 
on it.
In theory this sort of validation could even be made by hand but this is 
not satisfactory because it could also work with case-specific 
serializations which useless  for interoperability.
To enforce this requirement, we can say that a model is valid when it 
can be serialized in a way that relies on some external schema not 
specifically design for that model, a third party schema. This can be 
the VOMDL mapping proposal, even if it is not recommended.
The validation also requires that a model-aware software must be able to 
retrieve any component of serialized instances.

Laurent

Le 20/09/2019 à 17:13, CresitelloDittmar, Mark a écrit :
> Markus,
> 
> Thanks for looking it over so quickly.. comment early and often!
> Some comments in-line.
> 
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 9:10 AM Markus Demleitner 
> <msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de <mailto:msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de>> 
> wrote:
> 
>     Dear DM,
> 
>     On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 03:50:26PM +0200, Laurent Michel wrote:
>      > This is especially true for Meas and Coords; you cannot read one
>      > while ignoring the other.  This is why the 2 RFC periods have been
>      > both opened today for 6 weeks (21/10).
>      >
>      > - Meas https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/MeasRFC
> 
>     I've had a first read of Measurements (not really Coords, yet), and
>     since I probably won't find time to do some actual annotation to data
>     I hold until early November, I've posted some first comments on the
>     RFC page already.  A few of these points I'd like to bring to the
>     mailing list, since I feel there should be some community discussion
>     about them, so here's the first installment.
> 
>     First, I am very much in favour of extending the RFC for this until
>     we have the annotation syntax defined, at least at the level of a PR.
> 
>     True, for DMs the question of what "implemenation" means is always a
>     bit tricky. In this particular case, however, it is very clear that
>     most people will only properly look at things if they know what they
>     will be doing with it. That is particularly true for client authors.
>     I'd go as far as to say: I consider the DM implementation-proven if
>     there's astropy-affiliated code consuming at least 60% of the model.
> 
> 
> I'll leave that up to the TCG/Chairs... I've shown the model is 
> serializable in:
>    o VOTable - straight
>    o VOTable - annotated with the Mapping syntax
>    o XML
> All validating against their schema.
> It's also been shown that Astropy can invoke instances from a normal 
> VOTable even with simplistic annotation (ucd, utype, name).. so can be 
> only easier with any formalized syntax.
> 
> .......
 > ....
> 
> Mark
> 

-- 
---- Laurent MICHEL              Tel  (33 0) 3 68 85 24 37
      Observatoire de Strasbourg  Fax  (33 0) 3 68 85 24 32
      11 Rue de l'Universite      Mail laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr
      67000 Strasbourg (France)   Web  http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~michel
---