VEP-009

[Markus Demleitner]

Dear François,

On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 06:17:55PM +0200, BONNAREL FRANCOIS wrote:
> > What this means is that when you give or change a concept, you should
> > be able to give something like an if clause that conceptually can be
> > executed by a sufficiently sophisticated machine that would tell it
> > which bin to put the link in.  Since in the end the recipe is being
> > executed by a human, a certain amount of handwaving is permissable,
> > but I'm sure you cannot assume "science data" as such has an
> > interoperable meaning, and hence you just have to explain what that
> > is and how data providers can tell whether something is that or
> > rather "non-science data".
> 
> well "science data" results into source photon properties, taking into
> account the instrument response function.
> 
> If you don't like "science data" because you think the irf are also "science
> data" in some sense,  can we speak of "observed response" or "sky-generated
> response" ?

Could you try to write the if clause(s) that would do the sorting you
are after?  You see, something like

  A thing is a *#science-data if it represents photons received from the
  sky

would sort the reference fields (is that the term?) in a VLBI
observation into *#science-data (not to mention I'd like to avoid
restring ourselves to photons).  I *think* that's not what you
intend, is it?

> > Again, I think the best way to come up with this if statement is to
> > figure out exactly *why* you would want to put different sorts of
> > progenitors into different bins.
> 
> Well; see above I think I answered that several times.

Hm -- it may be just me, but I still cannot see why you don't like
the current #progenitor concept, except that you are uncomfortable
with the identifier (and at least the label could be more easily
repaired than by changing the concept).

If it's not that, can I ask you to try again to draw up a scenario of
the form:

  A researcher wants to do X, and they write a program doing Y.  That
  program needs to tell apart different sorts of (current)
  #progenitor-s because Z.

It's that Z that might tell us how the current #progenitor would have 
to be split up and in particular what might be wrong with it in the
first place.

          -- Markus