<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear all,</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">There is a new comment by Mark Kettenis
which I copy/pasted from a google doc document on the ivoa.net
radio dedicated page (see URL below). Thank you Mark<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">That's this:<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<blockquote type="cite">
<p> Also: with ultrawide band receivers (for instance: 20 GHz
bandwidth at 7mm) it may happen that the number of spectral
windows (each with its own setup) largely increases thus
translating in a multiplication of entry lines in <a
class="twikiLink"
href="https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/ObsCore">ObsCore</a>
for the same observation. How do we plan to deal with these
cases? Are we happy to have a large number of records in such
cases?</p>
<p>
<em>I think it's difficult to avoid. Or we have to group
together several spectral windows and use the multi-interval
support concept <a class="twikiLink"
href="https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/FrancoisBonnarel">FrancoisBonnarel</a>
- 2023-02-10"</em>
</p>
<p>
<em>Something like a spectral-coverage MOC could be useful
here, but that would be something for a future <a
class="twikiLink"
href="https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/ObsCore">ObsCore</a>
update as it isn't really radio-specific. I think it makes
sense to describe data with small "holes" in the spectral
coverage using a single <a class="twikiLink"
href="https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/ObsCore">ObsCore</a>
entry, (i.e. 16 MHz "bands" separated by something like 1
MHz), but describe data with larger holes by multiple
entries (i.e. <a href="mailto:1GHz@4GHz"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">1GHz@4GHz</a> + <a
href="mailto:1GHz@15GHz" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">1GHz@15GHz</a>
+ <a href="mailto:1GHz@22GHz" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">1GHz@22GHz</a>).
That would help discovery because people may discard
individual entries with a small amount of bandwidth on
grounds of not providing enough sensitivity. <a
class="twikiLink"
href="https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/MarkKettenis">MarkKettenis</a>
-2023-03-01</em>
</p>
</blockquote>
An issue is still to be created on github for this</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Cheers</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">François<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 10/02/2023 à 11:44, BONNAREL
FRANCOIS a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1d1a3878-ed47-3d60-1d84-3ee6796c24aa@astro.unistra.fr">Dear
radio astronomy fans,
<br>
<br>
- The ObsCore extension for Visibility data has been extended
in scope to become ObsCore extension for radio data
<br>
<br>
- It is intended that it becomes a DM WD ASAP. SO it has been
imported into a new ivoa-std github repository :
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/ivoa-std/ObsCoreExtensionForRadioData">https://github.com/ivoa-std/ObsCoreExtensionForRadioData</a> (thanks
to ivoa-std owners and DM chair)
<br>
<br>
- All recent comments by Alessandra, Vincenzo, Marco, John
and answers by Mireille, Baptiste and me have been reported there
as issues.
<br>
<br>
- The old repository
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/ivoa/ObsCoreExtensionForVisibilityData">https://github.com/ivoa/ObsCoreExtensionForVisibilityData</a> is still
there for legacy discussion, but you should not use it for new
issues. Go to the new repository instead.
<br>
<br>
- For long term legacy I opened an ivoa twiki page
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/ObsCoreExtensionForRadioData">https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/ObsCoreExtensionForRadioData</a>)
accessible form the main RadioIG page
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IvoaRadio">https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IvoaRadio</a>). The content
is the same than the issues on the github repository.
<br>
<br>
- For further discussion use whatever you prefer : Twiki
edition, github issues or PR, or emails on this list. I don't
recommend to use the google doc document created by Alessandra and
others any longer. The three supports should be enough.
<br>
<br>
- I plan to write a first github PR with all non-controversy
changes in the coming days
<br>
<br>
Cheers
<br>
<br>
François as editor of this specification project
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>