UCD vocabulary revision : first iteration of the maintance procedure

[Mireille Louys]

Hi Stephane , Hi all,

My comments inserted below...

Le 23/05/2018 à 01:00, Stéphane Erard a écrit :
> Dear Mireille and all
>
> I think some elements of the original requests got lost in the process.
yes there are pending terms for which the decision to propose was not 
clear . They will be discussed in the next iteration.
> Le 21 mai 2018 à 00:30, Mireille Louys <mireille.louys at unistra.fr> a écrit :
>
>> Dear Semantics , dear tcg members
>>
>> The Semantics has proposed a Maintenance procedure in oder to update the UCD list ( and more generaly ivoa vocabularies)
>> as stated in the WD http://www.ivoa.net/documents/UCDlistMaintenance/20171018/
>>
>> We are experiencing the first iteration of this procedure.
>>
>> Here is the list of new terms asked during the last revision iteration for UCD terms asked for the period  "May 2017 - Feb2018"
>>   23 terms have been proposed, discussed in the UCD expert group and inserted in the UCD assigning tool.
>>   
>>    Q | phys.electCharge | Electric charge
>>    Q | phys.current | Electric current
>>    Q | phys.current.density | Electric current density
>>    Q | pos.incidenceAng | Incidence angle of optical ray on an interface
>>    Q | pos.emergenceAng | Emergence angle of optical ray on an interface
>>    Q | pos.azimuth | azimuthal angle in a generic reference plane
> My original proposal was pos.azimuthAng
> Is there a reason to have a syntax different from the other angles? (pos.phaseAng which is related has been there for a long time)
> A more specific definition is
> 	Angle between illumination and viewing directions projected on the horizontal plane
>
>>    Q | phys.reflectance | Radiance factor (received radiance divided by input radiance)
> This description is not very precise: Radiance factor or I/F (radiance over normal solar flux)
>   (to make it short…)
I/F cannot be used in our definition label , because the UCD builder 
needs to allow a token for each term and weight them in order to define 
candidate
UCD terms for assignment.
The quantities to consider in this vocabulary should not depend (as far 
as possible) on any letter conventions.
"radiance over normal solar flux" would be appropriate terms for the 
assignation algorithm behind the UCD builder @CDS .
Do you consider this definition is  precise enough for your use-cases ?

>>    Q | phys.reflectance.bidirectional | Bidirectional reflectance
>>    Q | phys.reflectance.bidirectional.df | Bidirectional reflectance distribution function
> This one is a misunderstanding: "distribution function" is not a subtype of bidirectional reflectance (and has nothing to do with a probability distribution function). Instead, both bidirectional and brdf (= bidirectional reflectance distribution function) are subtypes of reflectance. brdf is a standard acronym in the interested community.
> I suggest instead to have
>   Q | phys.reflectance.bidirectional | Bidirectional reflectance (as proposed)
>   Q | phys.reflectance.brdf | Bidirectional reflectance distribution function
> If this is an issue, the first one has priority
if you need the precise term ' BRDF' I suggest then to adopt your 
suggestion :

  Q | phys.reflectance.brdf | Bidirectional reflectance distribution function

but
would you consider the meaning is correct with

arith.ratio; phys.reflectance.bidirectional ?



I suggest we try to continue the discussion on this list.
Thank you all for your precious feedback .
--
MireilleLouys , Semantics chair
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/semantics/attachments/20180523/fcb598c9/attachment.html>