[Radioig] ObsCore and extensions

[JJ Kavelaars]

Hi all,

First: I’m apologize for the fact that some of you will feel this is just ’slowing things down’.   I do want IVOA to get things sort of correct so that adoption of the standards is desired by organizations rather than seen as an extra layer/burden. 

Doesn’t the statement below show that t_exp_min and t_exp_max belong in obs_core and not in an extension? It think there a number of examples like this.

> On Jan 20, 2025, at 2:48 AM, Mireille LOUYS via Radioig <radioig at ivoa.net> wrote:
> 
> The Obscore extension note for radio data does not include t_exp_min , t_exp_max 
> theses have been proposed in the Obscore Time extension . 
> In the case of pulsar data , 2 extensions are needed  : the radio one and the time one .
> 
> Then we can use queries using the natural join as proposed by Mark Kettenis at the last interop in the radio session ( see Mark's presentation).

My perspective is the DM should express the fundamental ideas of the dimensions of the observation (which was the intention of CAOM). 

Services that cater to particular communities / use cases can expose sub-sets of that full expression using common language for their community.  The parts of the model that services leaves out of that view they are presented are not ‘extensions’ they have avoid but are part of the whole, the service has just chosen to not implement those parts.  Perhaps this ‘optionality’ is what people mean by ‘extension’?

I appreciate that IVOA has grown from community that supported optical and mostly imaging astronomy so the slant is towards that community.  I have the impression that optical imaging data gets considerable re-use and IVOA has been trying make that reuse as interoperable has possible. We certainly don’t what to place hurdles to continued use of those data.


Also just my 2 cents,

JJ

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/radioig/attachments/20250120/b6f72c7e/attachment.htm>