<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hi </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">Sonia & </font>Marco, Hi all, <br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Thanks for your feedback
in this precise implementation of the Obscore 1.1 specification. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Apologies for these typos
and missing descriptions terms that went through our vigilance as
authors and editors. <br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">We are aware that
when a model offers many fields, many implementations are needed
to test all the fields precisely and extensively.</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><br>
I have not experienced the errata process yet, but it seems
appropriate here.<br>
<br>
Cheers , Mireille.<br>
</font></font>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font></p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 22/08/2017 à 10:29, Marco Molinaro a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABiOC77z+Mfsu93ki5uJTif--uKbP1dPTzh6k5fALOniWv4YFA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear DM,</div>
<div>working on ObsCore-1.1 in the development of a tool to try
to help administering that table we found a few discrepancies
in the REC text.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1 - pol_states</div>
<div>This field is listed as mandatory in §3.2 (Table 1, page
21) but then, Appendix B page 42, in Table 5 the MANdatory
column says NO. After that, Table 6 on page 57 lists
pol_states again among the mandatory fields.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This looks like simply a typo.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2 - t_refpos</div>
<div>This field is listed in Table 5 (Appendix B) page 41 as an
optional one, but has no other entry in the specification,
e.g. it has no entry in Table 7 (Appendix C.2) so that no
Utype or UCD is defined for it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This one looks like a simple forgetfulness.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3 - units for strings</div>
<div>Table 5 (pagg. 40-43) reports units for the various fields.
However it defines string-type fields to be unitless except
for s_region (no value is reported) and proposal_id (which is
set as unit=string).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We think this is, again, only a minor typo since strings
are unitless (blank in VOUnits).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sorry for reporting this after ObsCore-1.1 reached REC.</div>
<div>How do you think we can fix this? Would an erratum (even a
single encompassing one) do?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div> Sonia & Marco</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
--
Mireille Louys
CDS Laboratoire Icube
Observatoire de Strasbourg Telecom Physique Strasbourg
11 rue de l'Université 300, Bd Sebastien Brandt CS 10413
F- 67000-STRASBOURG F-67412 ILLKIRCH Cedex
tel: +33 3 68 85 24 34</pre>
</body>
</html>