<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Stephane , Hi all, <br>
</p>
<p>My comments inserted below... <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 23/05/2018 à 01:00, Stéphane Erard a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A8851F24-E3FC-43C6-913F-A714DEA31243@obspm.fr">
<pre wrap="">Dear Mireille and all
I think some elements of the original requests got lost in the process.
</pre>
</blockquote>
yes there are pending terms for which the decision to propose was
not clear . They will be discussed in the next iteration.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A8851F24-E3FC-43C6-913F-A714DEA31243@obspm.fr">
<pre wrap="">
Le 21 mai 2018 à 00:30, Mireille Louys <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mireille.louys@unistra.fr"><mireille.louys@unistra.fr></a> a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ivoa.net/documents/UCDlistMaintenance/20171018/">http://www.ivoa.net/documents/UCDlistMaintenance/20171018/</a>
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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
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
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Q | phys.reflectance | Radiance factor (received radiance divided by input radiance)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
This description is not very precise: Radiance factor or I/F (radiance over normal solar flux)
(to make it short…)
</pre>
</blockquote>
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 <br>
UCD terms for assignment. <br>
The quantities to consider in this vocabulary should not depend (as
far as possible) on any letter conventions. <br>
"radiance over normal solar flux" would be appropriate terms for the
assignation algorithm behind the UCD builder @CDS . <br>
Do you consider this definition is precise enough for your
use-cases ? <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A8851F24-E3FC-43C6-913F-A714DEA31243@obspm.fr">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Q | phys.reflectance.bidirectional | Bidirectional reflectance
Q | phys.reflectance.bidirectional.df | Bidirectional reflectance distribution function
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
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
</pre>
</blockquote>
if you need the precise term ' BRDF' I suggest then to adopt your
suggestion : <br>
<pre wrap=""> Q | phys.reflectance.brdf | Bidirectional reflectance distribution function</pre>
but <br>
would you consider the meaning is correct with <br>
<pre wrap="">arith.ratio; phys.reflectance.bidirectional ?</pre>
<br>
<br>
I suggest we try to continue the discussion on this list. <br>
Thank you all for your precious feedback . <br>
--<br>
<font color="#000066"><font face="Arvo">MireilleLouys , Semantics
chair</font></font><br>
</body>
</html>