<div dir="ltr"><div>Thanks for a quick response, Markus.</div><div><br></div><div>The major shortcoming is that we would like to publish photometric data points along with a spectrum for the same aperture, and this can't be done with SDMv1.</div><div><br></div><div>With best regards,</div><div>Igor</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:17 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">Dear Igor,<br>
<br>
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 05:35:57AM -0400, Igor Chilingarian wrote:<br>
> We are preparing a major data release with my team in Moscow. It will<br>
> include a lot of stellar spectra + broadband SEDs. I'm wondering about the<br>
> current status of SED DM / SpecDMv2. The IVOA web-site lists SpecDMv2 as<br>
> "cancelled" and SED DM as "idle". It's strange because SpecDMv2 was at the<br>
> PR stage from what I understand.<br>
<br>
It was found in implemenation that the new serialisation didn't have<br>
sufficient advantages over version 1. On the other hand, it was felt<br>
that if we touch SDM, the result of the effort should be compliant<br>
with all the new cube and company models (which, presumably, would<br>
then let one represent spectra as a special case anyway).<br>
<br>
> What standard should we try to be compliant with? What we want is a<br>
> description of FITS serialization -- we need to adjust our web-based<br>
> spectrum visualizer to handle the right fields in the table.<br>
<br>
Use SDMv1 for now. If you notice any major shortcomings, I'm sure<br>
this group will be grateful for your feedback.<br>
<br>
-- Markus<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>