Design of MANGO errors: feedback expected

[CresitelloDittmar, Mark]

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>