[Radioig] ObsCore Extension For Radio Data discussion

[Gregory MANTELET]

Hi Mark,

I was unable to attend this discussion. I am not really involved in this 
standard, but I am anyway interested to follow a bit this topic.
Is there any note available somewhere?

Cheers,
Grégory


On 02/07/2024 14:30, Mark Kettenis via dm wrote:
> Agenda for discussion on IVOA Obscore Extension for Radio data
>
> Tuesday July 2, 15:30-16:30 UTC (17:30-18:30 CEST)
>
> Zoom coordinates:
>
> https://astron.zoom.us/j/81533464364?pwd=bQh0hVs3x3kAmjaLbwoDNJsjIFyIWS.1
>
> Meeting ID: 815 3346 4364
> Passcode: 354277
>
>
> Agenda
> ------
>
> 1. Representation of the ObsCore extension:
>
>    The PR standardizes a new ivoa.obscore_radio table and mandates the
>    presence of a obs_publisher_did column in order to be able to do a
>    NATURAL JOIN.  Note that Markus suggested to not specify an explicit
>    column to join on...
>
>    The PR suggests the possibility to provide a view that does that
>    performs this join but doesn't mandate it and doesn't provide a
>    standardized name for it.  Is this desirable?  Should this be
>    standardized?  How would this work for combining multiple extensions
>    (i.e. Radio + Time Domain).
>
> 2. Discovery of ObsCore extensions.
>
>    Converged on using a utype, but there are still multiple suggestions
>    for the name (ivo://ivoa.net/std/obsradio#table-1.0
>    vs. ivo://ivoa.net/std/ObsCore#obscore-radioExt-1.0) ?
>
>    Should we introduce both table_utype and schema_utype for extensions?
>
> 3. t_exp_{min|max|mean}
>
>    These still need a science case in the Appendix.  Can someone
>    (Baptiste?) provide one?  Naming is somewhat confusing (name is
>    similar to t_exptime in ObsCore, but describing a different
>    concept)?  Is the description correct now?
>
> 4. s_maximum_angular_scale_{min|max}
>
>    Like the FOV and resolution, the maximum spatial scale is actually
>    frequency-dependent.  Should we include min/max values in addition
>    to a typical value?
>
> 5. f_{min|max}
>
>    These have been dropped in the PR.  How to convert em_{max|min} into
>    frequencies has been specified in the standard with a prescribed
>    value for the speed of light.  f_resolution has been retained to
>    cater for observations with large fractional bandwidth and fixed
>    spectral resolution across the band.  Settled?
>
> 6. Next steps
>
>    Are we ready for RFC phase?
>
> 7. AOB
>
>