<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Thanks Arnold to clarify, and sorry to
      miss your previous explanation.<br>
      <br>
      In fact, more than discussing the method used to describe an area
      on the sphere (by STC regions or MOC or whatever), it is the
      meaning of this area that you highligth. And, if I correctly
      follow you, the question is : do we want to characterize the
      observed regions ? or the union of the effectives detected sources
      (catalog case) or pixels (image case) ?<br>
      <br>
      Now, in the first case -  for catalogs with ponctual sources - 
      how to build this coverage ? I do not know how to do with STC
      regions (no source area =&gt; empty union - default radius ?
      agregation algorithm with minimal distance ? ). At the opposite,
      MOC provides something well defined : the union of all MOC cells
      having at least one source. The accuracy of the result is
      dependent of the MOC resolution.<br>
      <br>
      In any case, observed regions or effective detected elements -
      each option has its own use cases. Now which one (or both) do we
      want to have in the registry ?<br>
      <br>
      Cheers<br>
      Pierre<br>
      <br>
      Le 02/02/2018 à 20:23, Arnold Rots a écrit :<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJXToE9jWL0E18s0RPODTpP96h04WK0+QoCcKKtKHSb8Gx2vgQ@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div>
          <div>
            <div>
              <div>
                <div>
                  <div>
                    <div>
                      <div>
                        <div>
                          <div>
                            <div>
                              <div>
                                <div>
                                  <div>
                                    <div>
                                      <div>
                                        <div>I have mentioned this
                                          before.<br>
                                        </div>
                                        A common positional query to
                                        catalogs basically asks three
                                        questions:<br>
                                      </div>
                                      1. Is this location covered by the
                                      catalog?<br>
                                    </div>
                                    2. If so, is there an entry
                                    associated with this location?<br>
                                  </div>
                                  3. If so, what is that entry?<br>
                                  <br>
                                </div>
                                My understanding is that the MOCs
                                associated with (most) catalogs<br>
                              </div>
                              provide the coverage of the <b>records </b>in
                              the catalog. As a consequence,<br>
                            </div>
                            <div>they can only give a definite response
                              if the answer to the second<br>
                            </div>
                            <div>question is yes.<br>
                            </div>
                            For the Chandra Source Catalog our coverage
                            represents the union<br>
                          </div>
                          of the fields of view of all the observations
                          used to create the catalog.<br>
                        </div>
                        This means that if a location is included in the
                        coverage, but does<br>
                      </div>
                      not correspond to a source, the user knows that
                      there is a non-<br>
                    </div>
                    detection at that location which, in many cases is
                    as significant as<br>
                  </div>
                  knowing there is a source.<br>
                </div>
                If on the other hand, the coverage is solely based on
                the catalog's<br>
              </div>
              records, a NO-answer is ambiguous; it may be: <i>no, we
                had a non-<br>
              </i></div>
            <i>detection</i>; or: <i>we don't know since we didn't look
              there</i>.<br>
          </div>
          I think that is a serious shortcoming. Non-detections are
          significant,<br>
        </div>
        <div>particularly in the context of SEDs and the time domain.<br>
          <br>
        </div>
        <div>Cheers,<br>
          <br>
        </div>
        <div>  - Arnold<br>
          <br>
        </div>
      </div>
      <div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
        <div>
          <div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
            <div dir="ltr">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
              Arnold H. Rots                                         
              Chandra X-ray Science Center<br>
              Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory                  
              tel:  +1 617 496 7701<br>
              60 Garden Street, MS 67                                   
                fax:  +1 617 495 7356<br>
              Cambridge, MA 02138                                    
                  <a href="mailto:arots@cfa.harvard.edu"
                target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">arots@cfa.harvard.edu</a><br>
              USA                                                   <a
                href="http://hea-www.harvard.edu/%7Earots/"
                target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/</a><br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
              <br>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
        <br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Pierre
          Fernique <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a
              href="mailto:Pierre.Fernique@astro.unistra.fr"
              target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Pierre.Fernique@astro.unistra.fr</a>&gt;</span>
          wrote:<br>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
              class=""><br>
              Le 30/01/2018 à 20:13, Arnold Rots a écrit :<br>
              <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                Another issue is that MOCs generated<br>
                for catalogs generally reflect the distribution of the
                catalog's<br>
                records, not the true coverage of the catalog.<br>
              </blockquote>
              <br>
            </span>
            Arnold can you detail this point ? I'm not sure that I
            caught your argument.<br>
            Thanks<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
                Pierre<br>
                <br>
              </font></span></blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>