IVOA - Spectrum Data Model change request
mdittmar at cfa.harvard.edu
Fri Oct 15 18:27:50 CEST 2021
Vandana, (cc-ing the DM working group to document the discussion)
I've been looking into the changes you have suggested for the Spectrum_1.1
* May 2021 interop presentation
My immediate goal is to review the requested changes and the model
doc/schema, to put together a plan which I will present at the upcoming
As I understand it, there are 2 main changes:
1) add 'order' to the SpectralAxis data content
The current model supports a single 1-D spectrum, and has no concept
of spectral order.
So, even if the data were separated into separate Spectrum instances,
the 'order' information would be lost.
This request would add a hook which would allow data containing
multiple spectral orders to be separated in application.
2) explicit support for Upper and Lower limits.
The current model 'supports' upper limits via a specialized usage of
the Accuracy.StatErrHigh/Low elements.
This is both cumbersome and technically incorrect.
The request is to add the Upper Limit and Lower Limit concepts to the
* There was a brief discussion about this during the Spectral_2.0
work (I think). If I remember
correctly, these can better be considered specialized Measure
types, rather than a form of
In other words: the FluxAxis.Value IS an upper limit.
* I assume there is additional associated information which goes
along with the upper/lower limit
but I'd consider that out of the scope of this request.
* as an FYI: this is something I need to work for the Cube model
I don't think we should spend much time now debating how upper/lower
limits should be modeled, but
I'd appreciate some more information on how you'd expect these
elements to be populated.
1) FluxAxis.Value: is this NULL?, 0?, or the determined
2) FluxAxis.Accuracy.UpperLimit: is this repeating the value? or
an independent value/column?
3) FluxAxis.Accuracy.LowerLimit: same
And 1 less-critical request:
3) move to VOUnit-1.0 rather than specify OGIP units compliance.
Please let me know your thoughts on the above, while I continue working out
As we move forward with this process, there will be 2 critical pieces for
which we will need support:
1) some minimal iterating to refine the definitions of the new elements
2) implementations! It looks like you are in a good position to test out
any proposed changes in action.
Please let me know if you are willing/able to help out in this regard.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dm