[Radioig] ObsCore extension last news

[Anita M S Richards]

Hi All,

Apologies that I have not been following this in detail but whilst I agree with Mark that 1.10 is not a realistic use case, selection by uv coverage is, but just the number of antennas and extrema of baseline lengths is not enough.  On the other hand, often all archives provide is baseline length (or even just antenna positions), frequency, pointing direction and observation duration.  Metrics related to uv coverage density can then easily be calculated (as in the L5 and L80 etc. metrics in the ALMA archive) but I don't know if this is commonly seachable directly for any archive.   So it is not just a matter of what is commonly searched for, but also what archives provide and how much there can be an interface to convert the latter to the former.

thanks
Anita


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. A.M.S. Richards
Senior visiting fellow, JBCA, University of Manchester, M13 9PL
a.m.s.richards at manchester.ac.uk (please do not use old  @jb.man.ac.uk email)
I work the hours which suit me. I do not expect instant replies, I respect whatever hours you work.

________________________________
From: Radioig <radioig-bounces at ivoa.net> on behalf of Mark Kettenis <kettenis at jive.eu>
Sent: 10 November 2023 14:28
To: BONNAREL FRANCOIS <francois.bonnarel at astro.unistra.fr>
Cc: radioig at ivoa.net <radioig at ivoa.net>
Subject: Re: [Radioig] ObsCore extension last news

> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2023 20:55:17 +0100
> From: BONNAREL FRANCOIS <francois.bonnarel at astro.unistra.fr>
>
> Dear all,

Hello Francois,

> 2 )
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wiki.ivoa.net/internal/IVOA/ObsCoreExtensionForRadioData/ADQLusecasesForObsCoreExtensionForRadioData.pdf__;!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!HyhwwRr7kABYG1-TlUUEvWs38ey-0cYDZYKmOpN-45ssDSu_Y5Zvz0S34Ay1is-fowGJTFJKOATDwFcTBpZd-YkoSWM9$ [wiki[.]ivoa[.]net]

Thanks.  It is good to have these ADQL examples.  But I think we need
a scientific use case associated with these ADQL examples as well.  I
still think the current set of additional columns is larger than it
should be as there is overlap between e.g. the ones that characterize
the uv coverage and the ones that characterize the field of view
and/or resolution.  I think we should drop the ones for which we do
not of have a scientific use case (including an ADQL example).

Another somewhat questionable example is use case 1.10.  The minimum
number of antennas for a "good" observation really is
instrument-specific and the maximum distance between antennas really
is just a very poor way of expressing a resolution or uv-coverage
constraint for which we already have columns.  So unless someone can
come up with a scientific use case for these parameters, I think they
should be dropped from the extension.

Thanks,

Mark


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/radioig/attachments/20231110/ce8c3b41/attachment-0001.htm>