Point in Coord

Laurent MICHEL laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr
Wed Apr 15 18:19:30 CEST 2020


Mark

I see the problem.
This is not an high level demand, but I bet that I'm not the only one 
who find it odd that celestial coordinates are not explicitely supported 
in STC (MCT in fact).
Anyway, I do not insist, let's move on.

Laurent

Le 15/04/2020 à 16:14, CresitelloDittmar, Mark a écrit :
> Laurent,
> 
> To be clear..
> The current arrangement of the objects is:
> current.png
> To add a CelestialPoint would require either:
>    + make coords:Point abstract
>    + create a coords:GenericPoint + coords:CelestialPoint(lat/lon)  + 
> coords:CartesianPoint(x,y,z)
>         * the specialized Points would need to constrain its 
> coordsys.coordSpace to match the type.
> Or
>    + add coords:CelestialPoint(lat/lon)
>    + add meas:CelestialPosition containing CelestialPoint
> 
> The models have been in similar configurations in the past..
> Both add objects, and generate >1 path for representing the same thing, 
> (which were negative comments on the earlier versions).
> 
> I'm not adverse to the idea, but don't want to go in circles.
> Mark
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:42 AM Laurent MICHEL 
> <laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr 
> <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr>> wrote:
> 
>     Mark
> 
> 
>     I do not propose to turn back toward Frame-centric coords
>     (GalacticPosition...)
>     I'm just proposing to add a new class without altering the model
>     structure.
>     This class would be specific to the celestian sphere (lon/lat) and
>     should be attached to a frame (ICRS...) as any other Point.
> 
>     It would be nice to get feebacks from other people on this.
> 
>     LM
> 
>     Le 08/04/2020 à 23:30, CresitelloDittmar, Mark a écrit :
>      > Laurent,
>      >
>      > The hierarchy is: Point references a SpaceSys which contains the
>      > SpaceFrame and the CoordSpace (both in composition).
>      > Point
>      >     |-> SpaceSys
>      >           o-> SpaceFrame
>      >           o-> PhysicalCoordSpace{Cartesian/SphericalCoordSpace}
>      >
>      > But that does not negate the question.
>      >    "However, taking into consideration that spatial coordinates
>     is the
>      > most used thing in Astronomy, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be
>     better to
>      > have one specific class for Cartesian points (refering to
>      > CartesianCoordSpace) and another for Spherical points (refering to
>      > SphericalCoordSpace)."
>      >
>      >    * Earlier drafts of Coords (2018) had Frame-centric coords with
>      > standard spaces (CartesianCoord, LongLatCoord)..
>      >    * Due to feedback on this representation, they migrated in
>     2019 to
>      > specialized singular coordinates (X,Y,Z,Long,Lat,R, etc) which
>     referred
>      > to axes of standard spaces, and were used in frame-centric Measures.
>      > Which is what went to the RFC phase.
>      >    * There, the frame-centric and space-centric Measures were
>     generally
>      > disliked (GalacticPosition, CartesianPosition)
>      >    * The RFC actions called for replacing the specialized singular
>      > coordinates with a single Point Coordinate, and removing the
>     specialized
>      > Measures, retaining only the single Position type containing a
>     Point.
>      > The consequence of users having to interrogate the Position to
>     determine
>      > the details of frame/space was considered acceptable.
>      >
>      > Obviously there is a sweet spot there somewhere, but I doubt we can
>      > settle into it until we have more implementation experience with it.
>      > Adding a CartesianPoint and SphericalPoint which constrains the
>     space is
>      > a simple update which can be done at any time.
>      >
>      > Mark
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:42 AM Laurent MICHEL
>      > <laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr
>     <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr>
>      > <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr
>     <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     Dear DM
>      >
>      >     I'm exercising with Coords with spatial coordinates.
>      >
>      >     My understanding is as follow:
>      >     ==============================
>      >     Spatial coordinates are represented by Point instances that,
>     skipping
>      >     the details, refers to a SpaceSys that refer to a SpaceFrame
>     that refer
>      >     to a PhysicalCoordSpace that is either a SphericalCoordSpace or a
>      >     CartesianCoordSpace.
>      >
>      >     Point
>      >         |-> SpaceSys
>      >               |-> SpaceFrame
>      >                    |->
>     PhysicalCoordSpace{Cartesian/SphericalCoordSpace}
>      >
>      >     So a client that gets a Point instance will have to step down
>     this
>      >     cascade and to check the class of the associated
>     PhysicalCoordSpace
>      >     instance before to know whether this point is  Cartesian or
>     Spherical.
>      >
>      >     Question:
>      >     ========
>      >     This is consistent but not very practical. I understand that
>     this model
>      >     provides components for host models that will be designed in
>     a way to
>      >     avoid clients to do such inferences. This could be the case
>     with the
>      >     upgrade of Meas.
>      >     However, taking into consideration that spatial coordinates
>     is the most
>      >     used thing in Astronomy, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be
>     better to have
>      >     one specific class for Cartesian points (refering to
>      >     CartesianCoordSpace) and another for Spherical points
>     (refering to
>      >     SphericalCoordSpace).
>      >
>      >     As a side effect this would allow to have one specific spherical
>      >     CoordSpace for the celestial sphere (lat ,long, R=1).
>      >
>      >     Laurent
>      >     --
>      >     ---- 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
>     <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr>
>     <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr
>     <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr>>
>      >            67000 Strasbourg (France)   Web
>     http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~michel
>      >     ---
>      >
> 
>     -- 
>     ---- 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 <mailto:laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr>
>            67000 Strasbourg (France)   Web http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~michel
>     ---
> 

-- 
---- 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
---


More information about the dm mailing list