<div dir="ltr">Hi Markus, registry,<div><br></div><div>I'm a little more in favour of using NUNIQs, but given</div><div>the MOC orders in place, I don't consider this as a</div><div>critical thing.</div><div><br></div><div>If possible, can we have a more complex <spatial><br></div><div>example in §2.3? Even at this early stage the single</div><div>cell there looks a bit too simple to exemplify what's</div><div>at stake.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div> Marco</div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2018-01-28 17:46 GMT+01:00 Mark Taylor <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:m.b.taylor@bristol.ac.uk" target="_blank">m.b.taylor@bristol.ac.uk</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Markus Demleitner wrote:<br>
<br>
> > In VOTables, an array-valued integer-typed cell can efficiently<br>
> > (for BINARY/2 serialization anyway) store MOCs in this form,<br>
> > and it should(?) be more straightforward for clients to ingest.<br>
><br>
> I'm not awfully convinced as regards the compact representation -- the<br>
> ranges in ASCII are fairly nifty, and the All-Sky 0/0-11, at least,<br>
> is hard to beat. And either way, I suspect it doesn't buy much<br>
> (like: factor of two) in the typical cases, in particular if you gzip<br>
> the VOTables. However, we can just try it of MOCs we find in the<br>
> Registry, and I'd do that if there's sufficient interest.<br>
><br>
> I'd consider the question of straightforwardness in handling much<br>
> more insteresting. For me, where the database (at least for now)<br>
> accepts and supplies ASCII MOCs, ASCII is a lot simpler, more<br>
> human-readable, and reasonably nice in VOResource, so they appear to<br>
> me as more attractive in VOTable as. But obviously NUNIQ wouldn't<br>
> require higher magic, either.<br>
><br>
> When handling these things from C, I can absolutely believe that<br>
> NUNIQ arrays are highly preferable unless you have a nifty and<br>
> well-written library.<br>
><br>
> So, I'm not sure and could be convinced either way. Whatever we<br>
> do, I'd strongly suggest the serialisation should be the (within<br>
> reason) the same between VOTable (tabledata) and VOResource.<br>
><br>
> Since I'd say this needs further discussion and possibly research, in<br>
> particular over on Apps, I've put it in as another question to<br>
> consider (Volute rev. 4717).<br>
<br>
</div></div>OK well I don't have a strong opinion. If the general feeling<br>
is that the ASCII representation is approximately as good or better<br>
than the numeric one, I won't push for a change.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
--<br>
Mark Taylor Astronomical Programmer Physics, Bristol University, UK<br>
<a href="mailto:m.b.taylor@bris.ac.uk">m.b.taylor@bris.ac.uk</a> <a href="tel:%2B44-117-9288776" value="+441179288776">+44-117-9288776</a> <a href="http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~<wbr>mbt/</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>