<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Markus, <div class=""><br class=""></div><div>Thanks a lot for this Note! </div><div>I forward your email to the TDIG for comments since I think it is of interest to the Time Domain community. </div><div><br class=""></div><div class="">I can see that the idea is to combine spatial, wavelength and temporal coverages to discover data. </div><div class="">In general, I like the idea and looks like a simple approach. I agree with the chosen time references as MJD, TT, barycentre of the solar system. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I would like to be sure that discovery for the temporal axes is not limited to day but that there will be the possibility of making a finer query, say down to the hour or the minute. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div>Section 4</div><div>Further axes? As you mention one could add more axes, but something like redshift would already impose questions like: how was it calculated? Photometrically or spectroscopically? Personally I think this might complicated things. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>Other ref. systems? Indeed for SSO or moving objects it might not be enough. As minimal requirements for time series data we included a target name field. For SSOs we should follow the IAU convention, I found this <a href="https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/#inss" class="">https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/#inss</a> </div><div><br class=""></div><div>Non electromagnetic coverage? Again, we thought about this in the time domain context and it might be useful to add Neutrino and GWs. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Ada</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 17 Jan 2018, at 10:58, Markus Demleitner <<a href="mailto:msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de" class="">msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Dear colleagues,<br class=""><br class="">Those who attended our session in Shanghai may remember my talk on<br class="">how we can finally get proper STC queries against the Registry -- <br class=""><a href="http://wiki.ivoa.net/internal/IVOA/InterOpMay2017-Reg/reg-stc.pdf" class="">http://wiki.ivoa.net/internal/IVOA/InterOpMay2017-Reg/reg-stc.pdf</a><br class=""><br class="">I've finally done the various implementation parts to try everything<br class="">out in DaCHS and the relational registry (at this point, it's only on<br class="">the Heidelberg mirror, since harvesting the MOCs is quite a bit of<br class="">pain).<br class=""><br class="">Based on that experience, I'd now propose a roadmap for how we could<br class="">move towards more-or-less universal declaration of coverages in<br class="">space, time, and spectrum for the VO Registry. I've drafted<br class="">a Note that I'd like to upload to the document repository -- probably<br class="">some time next week unless you want more time for discussions.<br class=""><br class="">A draft of the note is available from<br class="">http://docs.g-vo.org/regstcnote.pdf, the sources (that you're welcome<br class="">to work on) are in volute at <br class="">https://volute.g-vo.org/svn/trunk/projects/registry/regstcnote<br class="">-- this includes a copy of the modified VODataService schema that<br class="">will later be part of the upload.<br class=""><br class="">After this, I'd be grateful if you (yes, you!) could<br class=""><br class="">(a) briefly review the thing to and protest quickly if you strongly<br class="">disagree with the main points of the note? Ideally, I'd like the<br class="">note to represent the "rough consensus" that's traditionally half of<br class="">the RFC process (the other part being "running code").<br class=""><br class="">(b) perhaps look a bit deeper at the stuff if you're interested a bit<br class="">more in the registry/STC borderline. If you still feel comfortable<br class="">with the note then, I'd be happy to include you on the author list.<br class="">I feel a bit odd being the only author on something fairly<br class="">wide-reaching, and certainly some of you out there had important<br class="">roles in shaping what's written there during the past six years or so<br class="">(yeah: according to RegTAP WD-20121112, it removed a first version of<br class="">this...). So: If you can see your name on this note, just drop me a<br class="">note, and don't be shy or overly modest.<br class=""><br class="">Thanks,<br class=""><br class=""> Markus<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>