From laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr  Tue Apr  1 15:27:22 2025
From: laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr (Laurent Michel)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 15:27:22 +0200
Subject: Design of MANGO errors: feedback expected
Message-ID: <06D8761E-8E2A-479F-BE0F-E19F1FE76BF9@astro.unistra.fr>

Hello DM,

(cf issue https://github.com/ivoa-std/MANGO/issues/60)

We would like get feedback from the WG about the MANGO error.

In the MANGO use cases, we have the cross-match case which requires the errors to come with statistical parameters (distribution and confidence level).

For this purpose, Mango has an abstract. datatype  with these parameters (mango:PropertyError) from which some concrete error types (e.g. ellipse ?) derive.
    ? Symmertrical error  1D and 2D
    ? ASymmertrical error  1D
    ? Ellipse error

These 4 classes have counterparts in Meas, but they have more handy attributes.
    ? Individual roles for each attribute (majorAxis, minorAxis, angle) instead of value arrays [x, x, x].

These classes also have specific names in order to prevent conflicts with measure classes.

The question is to decide whether the abstract mango:PropertyError should or not derive from the astract meas:Uncertainty?
    ? PRO: any Measurement error type could then be reused by Mango properties
    ? CON: this will make Mango providing different error types form the same purpose (meas:ellipse or mango:PErrorEllipse)
    ? CON: in our experience, cross model references are a burden for clients and particularly for annoters
    ? CON: The MIVOT annotation of some Meas error classes may be tricky to interpret for the clients (attribute values in arrays).

We suggest not deriving mango:PropertyError from meas:Uncertainty.

We would like to get the group (des)agreement before opening the corresponding GIT PR

Mireille and Laurent

From mdittmar at cfa.harvard.edu  Tue Apr  1 16:23:13 2025
From: mdittmar at cfa.harvard.edu (CresitelloDittmar, Mark)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 10:23:13 -0400
Subject: Design of MANGO errors: feedback expected
In-Reply-To: <06D8761E-8E2A-479F-BE0F-E19F1FE76BF9@astro.unistra.fr>
References: <06D8761E-8E2A-479F-BE0F-E19F1FE76BF9@astro.unistra.fr>
Message-ID: <CAH4enyMhOTPLQL_c+pzKm3o2LjXkNOJs=iNOVjcRh1E-tfeP0w@mail.gmail.com>

Laurent/Mireille,

I was literally on my way to submit a comment on this!

I think your proposal is the best approach at this point.. separate the
mango:PropertyError from meas:Uncertainty.
Unless we, as a working group, have a consensus on how to execute these
situations in the models, I think it's better to avoid the conflicts which
arise from having these stem from the same base.

re:
    ? CON: in our experience, cross model references are a burden for
clients and particularly for annoters
    ? CON: The MIVOT annotation of some Meas error classes may be tricky to
interpret for the clients (attribute values in arrays).

This is worth discussing in the group (Running Meeting?)...
I read this as "you've changed the modeling to avoid issues with the
annotation".

Mark




On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 9:27?AM Laurent Michel via dm <dm at ivoa.net> wrote:

> Hello DM,
>
> (cf issue https://github.com/ivoa-std/MANGO/issues/60)
>
> We would like get feedback from the WG about the MANGO error.
>
> In the MANGO use cases, we have the cross-match case which requires the
> errors to come with statistical parameters (distribution and confidence
> level).
>
> For this purpose, Mango has an abstract. datatype  with these parameters
> (mango:PropertyError) from which some concrete error types (e.g. ellipse ?)
> derive.
>     ? Symmertrical error  1D and 2D
>     ? ASymmertrical error  1D
>     ? Ellipse error
>
> These 4 classes have counterparts in Meas, but they have more handy
> attributes.
>     ? Individual roles for each attribute (majorAxis, minorAxis, angle)
> instead of value arrays [x, x, x].
>
> These classes also have specific names in order to prevent conflicts with
> measure classes.
>
> The question is to decide whether the abstract mango:PropertyError should
> or not derive from the astract meas:Uncertainty?
>     ? PRO: any Measurement error type could then be reused by Mango
> properties
>     ? CON: this will make Mango providing different error types form the
> same purpose (meas:ellipse or mango:PErrorEllipse)
>     ? CON: in our experience, cross model references are a burden for
> clients and particularly for annoters
>     ? CON: The MIVOT annotation of some Meas error classes may be tricky
> to interpret for the clients (attribute values in arrays).
>
> We suggest not deriving mango:PropertyError from meas:Uncertainty.
>
> We would like to get the group (des)agreement before opening the
> corresponding GIT PR
>
> Mireille and Laurent
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dm/attachments/20250401/f996f112/attachment.htm>

From laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr  Tue Apr  1 17:50:32 2025
From: laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr (Laurent Michel)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 17:50:32 +0200
Subject: Design of MANGO errors: feedback expected
In-Reply-To: <CAH4enyMhOTPLQL_c+pzKm3o2LjXkNOJs=iNOVjcRh1E-tfeP0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <06D8761E-8E2A-479F-BE0F-E19F1FE76BF9@astro.unistra.fr>
 <CAH4enyMhOTPLQL_c+pzKm3o2LjXkNOJs=iNOVjcRh1E-tfeP0w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <077cd283-434b-4193-aa29-40212d9bb2ac@astro.unistra.fr>



Le 01/04/2025 ? 16:23, CresitelloDittmar, Mark a ?crit?:
> Laurent/Mireille,
> 
> I was literally on my way to submit a comment on this!
> 
> I think your proposal is the best approach at this point.. separate the mango:PropertyError from meas:Uncertainty.
> Unless we, as a working group, have a consensus?on how to execute these situations in the models, I think it's better to avoid 
> the conflicts which arise from having these stem from the same base.

OK, I'll do this in the next PR

> 
> re:
> ? CON: in our experience, cross model references are a burden for clients and particularly for annoters
>  ? ? ? CON: The MIVOT annotation of some Meas error classes may be tricky to interpret for the clients (attribute values in arrays).
> 
> This is worth discussing in the group?(Running Meeting?)...

Yes of course.

> I read this as "you've changed the modeling to avoid issues with the annotation".

I do not say this. Any pattern can be annotated.

I'm just saying that:
- in my perspective, stackholders will prefer to deal with ellipses defined as
      {majorAxis, minorAxis, angle} (one role per item)
   rather than
       [x, y, z] (one role per item rank)
   this point do no relate with the annotation.
- There is no issue with the annotation, but let's mix model
   components only when necessary to keep the annotation process simple.

Laurent
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 9:27?AM Laurent Michel via dm <dm at ivoa.net <mailto:dm at ivoa.net>> wrote:
> 
>     Hello DM,
> 
>     (cf issue https://github.com/ivoa-std/MANGO/issues/60 <https://github.com/ivoa-std/MANGO/issues/60>)
> 
>     We would like get feedback from the WG about the MANGO error.
> 
>     In the MANGO use cases, we have the cross-match case which requires the errors to come with statistical parameters
>     (distribution and confidence level).
> 
>     For this purpose, Mango has an abstract. datatype? with these parameters (mango:PropertyError) from which some concrete
>     error types (e.g. ellipse ?) derive.
>      ? ? ? Symmertrical error? 1D and 2D
>      ? ? ? ASymmertrical error? 1D
>      ? ? ? Ellipse error
> 
>     These 4 classes have counterparts in Meas, but they have more handy attributes.
>      ? ? ? Individual roles for each attribute (majorAxis, minorAxis, angle) instead of value arrays [x, x, x].
> 
>     These classes also have specific names in order to prevent conflicts with measure classes.
> 
>     The question is to decide whether the abstract mango:PropertyError should or not derive from the astract meas:Uncertainty?
>      ? ? ? PRO: any Measurement error type could then be reused by Mango properties
>      ? ? ? CON: this will make Mango providing different error types form the same purpose (meas:ellipse or mango:PErrorEllipse)
>      ? ? ? CON: in our experience, cross model references are a burden for clients and particularly for annoters
>      ? ? ? CON: The MIVOT annotation of some Meas error classes may be tricky to interpret for the clients (attribute values in
>     arrays).
> 
>     We suggest not deriving mango:PropertyError from meas:Uncertainty.
> 
>     We would like to get the group (des)agreement before opening the corresponding GIT PR
> 
>     Mireille and Laurent
> 

--
English version: https: //www.deepl.com/translator
-- 
jesuischarlie/Tunis/Paris/Bruxelles/Berlin

Laurent Michel
SSC XMM-Newton
T?l : +33 (0)3 68 85 24 37
Fax : +33 (0)3 )3 68 85 24 32
Universit? de Strasbourg <http://www.unistra.fr>
Observatoire Astronomique
11 Rue de l'Universit?
F - 67200 Strasbourg