<div dir="ltr"><div>Markus,<br><br></div><div>Thanks for the feedback. I would just like to point out that we did, indeed, follow the structure outlined in DocStd pg 12.<br></div><div>The page has sections for Rationale, Erratum Content, Impact Assessment, and Notes. D&S page 12 is not specific about the 'Change in Standard' section.<br></div><div>For each item, we show the reported problem and the correction.. as pg 12 recommends ("original wording and new wording").<br></div><div><br></div><div>We're happy to modify the detail format if it will be more clear to the users in the end.<br></div><div><br>Mark<br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:55 AM Markus Demleitner <<a href="mailto:msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de">msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi DM,<br>
<br>
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:04:09PM +0100, Laurent Michel wrote:<br>
> The errata page for Obscore 1.1 has been open:<br>
> <br>
> <a href="https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/ObsCore-1_1-Errata" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/ObsCore-1_1-Errata</a><br>
> <br>
> The erratum 1 contains 6 items. 5 have been discussed on the list and the<br>
> 6th (missing facily_name) has been detected during the document review.<br>
> Please consider reviewing it and discuss it on this list.<br>
<br>
While I think I'm ok with most of the issues raised (I'd propose a<br>
different URI UCD, but I don't care enough to quarrel), I'd say the<br>
form of the Erratum needs to be substantially improved -- remember,<br>
Errata essentially become part of the REC, and implementors will read<br>
this with the expectation of clearly learning what's wrong and what<br>
needs to be fixed (and they'll not appreciate language like "This<br>
looks like simply a typo", I suppose).<br>
<br>
I'd therefore suggest to split this erratum into at least two<br>
separate errata; I could well see:<br>
<br>
(a) Invalid UCDs <br>
<br>
(b) Inconsistent Metadata in Table 5<br>
<br>
Further more, the Erratum (or future Errate) would, I think, win a<br>
lot if it (they) followed the recommended top-level structure<br>
(DocStd, p. 12), viz,<br>
<br>
Rationale<br>
<br>
Change in Standard<br>
<br>
Impact Assessement<br>
<br>
-- for (b), the "Change in Standard" section should probably be just<br>
the entire Table 5 with changes marked in, perhaps, red. For (a),<br>
I'd say something like[1]<br>
<br>
Rationale<br>
<br>
ObsCore gives mandatory UCDs for the fields that make up the schema.<br>
Unfortunately, while constructing the UCDs of some columns, invalid<br>
or overspecific UCDs were chosen.<br>
<br>
This concerns <br>
<br>
(a) obs_publisher_did and publisher_id columns; both are required to<br>
have meta.ref.uri;meta.curation. This is invalid by the UCD<br>
standard, as meta.curation is a primary word.<br>
<br>
(b) o_stat_error is required to have stat.error;phot.flux. Since<br>
ObsCore tables can also contain products in which the observables are<br>
not flux-like, this is overspecific.<br>
<br>
<br>
Change in Standard<br>
<br>
On PDF p. 56 (Table 7), in the row for obs_publisher_did, replace <br>
meta.ref.uri;meta.curation with meta.curation;meta.ref.uri.<br>
<br>
On PDF p. 58 (Table 7), in the row for publisher_id, replace <br>
meta.ref.uri;meta.curation with meta.curation;meta.ref.uri.<br>
<br>
On PDF p. 59 (Table 7), in the row for o_stat_error, replace<br>
stat.error;phot.flux with stat.error.<br>
<br>
On PDF p. 62, in the FIELD definition for obs_publisher_did, replace <br>
meta.ref.uri;meta.curation with meta.curation;meta.ref.uri.<br>
<br>
<br>
Impact Assessment<br>
<br>
ObsCore clients normally use column names or perhaps utypes to<br>
identify data model members. The change of the UCDs proposed here<br>
should not impact them.<br>
<br>
Clients not aware of ObsCore will profit from the proposed change;<br>
for obs_publisher_did and publisher_id, they will no longer produce<br>
diagnostics for invalid UCDs, and for os_stat_error they will not be<br>
mislead any more.<br>
<br>
Or so -- future implementors will be grateful.<br>
<br>
-- Markus<br>
<br>
<br>
[1] I've put in meta.curation;meta.ref.uri instead of meta.ref.ivorn (or<br>
ivoid, whatever) -- for one, it's more specific, and for a second,<br>
in practice people put all kinds of things there, not just ivoids.<br>
That's particularly true for the pubDID, and I totally see that a DOI<br>
is at least as good as an ivoid.<br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>