UCD requests from CASDA Project
Jessica.Chapman at csiro.au
Jessica.Chapman at csiro.au
Tue Jul 19 06:22:06 CEST 2016
Dear Mireille and Andrea
Thanks for your email today. It's great to see the new terms being added to the vocabulary and your suggestions are very helpful.
As I'm now on long-term leave would you please correspond with James Dempsey for any further discussions on the CASDA UCDs. James is already on the semantics group distribution list and will be in touch.
Best wishes
Jessica
Dr Jessica Chapman
CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science
Data Management Leader
PO Box 76, Epping, NSW 1710
T: 02 9372 4196
E: Jessica.Chapman at csiro.au
W: www.atnf.csiro.au
-----Original Message-----
From: Mireille Louys [mailto:mireille.louys at unistra.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, 19 July 2016 5:01 AM
To: Chapman, Jessica (CASS, Marsfield) <Jessica.Chapman at csiro.au>; hessman at astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de; semantics at ivoa.net
Cc: Dempsey, James (IM&T, Yarralumla) <James.Dempsey at csiro.au>; Whiting, Matthew (CASS, Marsfield) <Matthew.Whiting at csiro.au>
Subject: Re: UCD requests from CASDA Project
Hi all,
Sorry for this long delay .
We have discussed the suggestions proposed in the UCD maintenance group and tried out the various suggested terms .
I added comments into the original table of suggestions with additions in red color.
New added terms are currently been incorporated into the UCD standard and will be available in the assigning test tool at :
http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/UCD/cgi-bin/descr2ucd.test
Your comments welcome.
Cheers, Mireille and Andrea Preite Martinez
Le 22/06/2016 à 05:53, Jessica.Chapman at csiro.au a écrit :
> Hi Frederick
>
> Thanks for your message and comments.
>
> We do agree and understand that the UCDs can’t cover everything. It's clearly a very difficult challenge to get the vocabulary 'right' and to find the balance between being overly lean and overly fat. The list we've sent is the specific list used for CASDA so far - we can certainly change some of the terms if there are better options and/or keep some terms in the ASKAP name space.
>
> As a general comment though, at present the vocabulary is lacking some terms that are widely used in radio astronomy and with ASKAP, MeerKAT and SKA coming up it would be good to do some updates for this. We note here that large-scale polarisation studies are key science goals for these facilities.
>
> In response to your comments, we have been through the list again and have added two extra columns (D) and (E) to show the items that you have marked as 'obviously needed'. We have also identified the more specialised items that we could keep in our own name space and the ones we would still like the IVOA to consider further - as describing terms that are widely used. The revised list (those with a yes in col D) now suggests a total of 15 new terms.
>
> We would welcome any further discussion. Hopefully this version gives a better separation of flowers from weeds.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Cheers
>
> Jessica
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederic V. Hessman
> [mailto:hessman at astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 June 2016 8:25 PM
> To: Chapman, Jessica (CASS, Marsfield) <Jessica.Chapman at csiro.au>
> Cc: mireille.louys at unistra.fr; semantics at ivoa.net; Dempsey, James
> (IM&T, Yarralumla) <James.Dempsey at csiro.au>; Whiting, Matthew (CASS,
> Marsfield) <Matthew.Whiting at csiro.au>
> Subject: Re: UCD requests from CASDA Project
>
> Dear Jessica et al.:
>
> Currently, the UCD’s are a mixed bag, semantically, where one notices
> that they have grown organicallly out of need rather than from a
> planned semantic scheme. Straight-forward terms like
>
> arith.integrated
> meta.deconvolved
> meta.corrected
> stat.centroid
> stat.fwhm
> stat.rms
> phys.polarization.stokes.I
> phys.polarization.stokes.Q
> phys.polarization.stokes.U
> phys.polarization.stokes.V
>
> are obviously needed.
>
>
> Highly specialized terms like
>
> spect.curvature
> em.wl.squared Wavelength squared' is used in polarisation studies as it relates to Faraday rotation.
>
> are best kept within a specialized vocabulary - UCD can’t possibly
> cover everything
>
>
> Similarly, the highly specialized composite term
>
> instr.rmsf Rotation measure and the rotation measure spread function are used in radio astronomy polarisation studies
> is really “rotation-measure” + “spread-function”, i.e. a better
> generic description would be
>
> phys.polarisation.rotMeasure;stat.pdf
>
> (I’ve added the new UCD “stat.pdf” for a “probability distribution
> function”, for which I couldn’t find a reasonable composite
> replacement)
>
>
> Other composite terms like
>
> spect.line.width20 Spectral line width at 20 per cent of peak
>
> (concept plus a numerical value) are trickier - why not then spect.line.width10? spect.line.width.5? spect.line.width.12.345? Perhaps we can assume that 1, 5, 10, and … limits on a PDF are common enough that we need standard terms. Or how does one attach metadata to this metadata without using totally new metadata links? Something like
>
> spect.line.width;value=20
>
>
> rather than a more complex solution like
>
> <param ucd=“spect.line.width name=“linewidth">1.2345</param>
> <param ucd=“stat.pdf.margin” ref=“linewidth">20</param>
>
>
> (whoops - another new term, “stat.pdf.margin”).
>
> Similar problem in
>
> src.asymmetry.2d measure of 2-d asymmetry
> src.asymmetry.3d measure of 3-d asymmetry
>
> i.e. what about src.asymmetry.4d? Composite equivalent would be more like
>
> src.morph;stat.asymmetry
>
> (whoops - another new term, “stat.asymmetry”).
>
>
> The term
>
> em.freq.width measure of width in frequency
>
> follows generic UCD use, but we see how there’s *.width creep taking place here: where do we stop? How about “phot.color.excess.width”?
>
> ## Radio astronomy almost always provides width/bandwidth measures in
> frequency or velocity - not wavelength terms. The terms 'color index'
> and 'color excess' are just not used in radio astronomy and I think
> would be quite confusing in this context. So we do request the .width
>
> I’m not even sure what
>
> spect.dopplerVeloc.width Measure of spectral width in velocity
>
> is supposed to mean: the velocity width of a spectra feature caused
> solely by Doppler shifts (as opposed to other broadening mechanisms)?
> Why not then
>
> spect.line.broad;phys.doppler
>
> (again had to invent “phys.doppler”)?
>
>
> The problem with “pixel” and “voxel” is that pixel is a subset of voxels, interpreting the latter as a generalized n-dimensional “pixel” (even though it is most often used as a 3-D volumic “pixel”). Thus, everywhere where one uses “pixel” one could just as easily use “voxel” - unless we need a new generic term …. “genxel”? ;-D In the interest of generality, we do then need
>
> instr.voxel
>
> and really should be removing “pixel”.
>
> With
>
> phot.flux.density.voxel flux density of a voxel
>
> do we then need "phot.flux.density.pixel”? or shouldn’t one use
>
> phot.flux.density;instr.voxel
>
> or isn’t there hidden complexity here: flux-density PER voxel or
> somehow associated with voxels (e.g. measuring using voxels)? How
> about
>
> phot.flux.density;instr.voxel;artih.ratio
>
> to indicate “flux-density per voxel”?
>
>
> The problem of extending UCD is that we can either
>
> - keep it lean (well, the present fat is there to stay….), forcing
> groups like CASDA to define their own (a good thing which forces
> everyone to acknowledge that the astronomical semantic world is
> complex so we have to deal with it rather than ignoring it or waiting
> for the IVOA to solve everyone’s problems); or
>
>
> - let it expand to cover everyone’s needs, a lazy and chaotic way of
> solving the problem; or
>
> - let it grow infinitesimally, knowing that our garden will always
> contain some weeds; or
>
> - plant but ALSO prune propitiously so that we only have generic flowers, letting others worry about the weeds.
>
>
> Rick
>
>> On 21 Jun 2016, at 01:42, <Jessica.Chapman at csiro.au> <Jessica.Chapman at csiro.au> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Mireille and IVOA semantics group
>>
>> This is to send you a request now to consider some additional UCD terms. I'm attaching an excel file with a list of the terms we have needed for CASDA (so far) that are not in the standard vocabulary.
>>
>> If you have questions or need any additional information do contact us.
>>
>> Thanks and best wishes
>>
>> Jessica
>>
>>
>> Dr Jessica Chapman
>> CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science
>> Data Management Leader
>> PO Box 76, Epping, NSW 1710
>>
>> T: 02 9372 4196
>> E: Jessica.Chapman at csiro.au
>> W: www.atnf.csiro.au
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mireille Louys [mailto:mireille.louys at unistra.fr]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2016 10:21 PM
>> To: Chapman, Jessica (CASS, Marsfield) <Jessica.Chapman at csiro.au>
>> Subject: follow-up of Cape town semantics sesison
>>
>> Dear Jessica ,
>>
>> We'll set up a service for users to request new UCD terms after this meeting.
>> In the mean time , would you mind to send the request for new terms as proposed in your ASKAP name space to the semantics at ivoa.net list ?
>>
>> I suggest to provide a short request entry with the new term , a short definition for this new term , and a short description for the context.
>> This would help to launch the process.
>>
>> Thank you for pointing this need and opening for a better uptake for radio data.
>>
>> Best regards , Mireille Louys
>>
>> <ASKAP_UCDs.xlsx>
>
More information about the semantics
mailing list