[Heig] Thematic meeting: ObsCore and extensions

[Bruno Khelifi]

Dear all,

As discussed during our last meeting, a dedicated discussion is 
necessary to provide to the DM WG (and maybe the TCG) a "HEIG feedback" 
on the ObsCore extension proposal of Patrick Dowler (see the attached 
email).

The purpose of the meeting is to answer to the following questions:
- Should we approve the scheme of extension of ObsCore for the radio or 
the one of insertion of elements into the core ObsCore DM, in the 
perspective of our future proposal?
- Are the proposed elements in line with our possible future proposal?
- AoB

Discussions have been started by email (see exchanges of François and 
Ian). We propose to conclude these exchanges with a remote meeting. Here 
is a pool to choose the best time slot for the experts:

https://strawpoll.com/e6Z2AWvY6gN

I do imagine that Ian, Mathieu and François may desire to present their 
thoughts. Any contributions are welcome!

The best,
Bruno



Le 06/01/2025 à 21:08, Janet Evans via heig a écrit :
>
> See below … a discussion about Obscore on the DM list.  We can discuss 
> next mtg if HE folks interested in this topic are also on the DM list 
> and then I won’t forward.  Since we’re a new IG … thought it may help. 
>  We’ll definitely get Obscore as a topic of our next mtg.
>
> -janet
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *Patrick Dowler via dm <dm at ivoa.net>
>> *Subject: **ObsCore and extensions*
>> *Date: *January 6, 2025 at 3:02:23 PM EST
>> *To: *Data Models mailing list <dm at ivoa.net>
>> *Cc: *François Bonnarel <francois.bonnarel at astro.unistra.fr>
>> *Reply-To: *Patrick Dowler <pdowler.cadc at gmail.com>
>>
>> At the last interOp and while comparing the radio extension to
>> CAOM-2.4 and some new features in WD-CAOM-2.5, it became increasingly
>> clear that some of the proposed fields for the radio extension are
>> more generally applicable and in my opinion should be promoted to
>> "core". I kind of volunteered to write down the details of that, so
>> here it is that proposal:
>>
>> ** core **
>> s_resolution_min
>> s_resolution_max
>> s_fov_min
>> s_fov_max: I still feel the existing s_fov is already the same as
>> s_fov_max and not a representative value; it is nominally the size of
>> the s_region
>> t_exp_min
>> t_exp_max
>> t_exp_mean: In CAOM exposure is already the mean exposure time per
>> pixel and I feel strongly that the existing ObsCore.t_exptime is
>> already the same thing (well, it suggests "median exposure time per
>> pixel" which I think I may have contributed, but median breaks down in
>> some common nearly degenerate cases and is less useful than mean; we
>> may need to clarify the definition in ObsCore
>> f_resolution: absolute spectral resolution is useful, but this should
>> be named em_resolution
>>
>> ** radio extension **
>> s_maxiumum_angular_scale - I have been convinced by radio people that
>> maximum_recoverable_scale is more explicit and a better term for this
>> uv_distance_min
>> uv_distance_max
>> uv_distribution_ecc
>> uv_distribution_fill
>>
>> Questions:
>> 1. How does this impact the time extension?
>> 2. How does this impact the high energy extension?
>>
>> Work:
>> 1. ObsCore needs to be ported to ivoatex (from docx?) and included in 
>> ivoa-std
>> 2. I can set aside time necessary to write the the changes for 
>> WD-ObsCore-1.2
>>
>>
>> --
>> Patrick Dowler
>> Canadian Astronomy Data Centre
>> Victoria, BC, Canada
>
>
-- 

                          Bruno Khelifi
                   Physicist at CNRS (laboratory APC, Paris)
       Phone: +33.1.57.27.61.58 - Fax: +33.1.57.27.60.71
               APC, IN2P3/CNRS - Universite de Paris Cite
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/heig/attachments/20250129/ef47e2c7/attachment.htm>