<div dir="ltr">I should have opted for tea - my attempts at coffee were oddly unsuccessful. My (freshly opened) milk kept curdling. If I were a chemist, I'd be fascinated...<div><br></div><div>So that sounds like an argument for creating #metadata specifically to be the supertype of #header. If so, what non-#header type might there also be under #metadata? I don't object to having the occasional platypus in a taxonomy, but no more than are strictly necessary...</div><div><br><div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">-Anne.</div></div></div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 7:30 AM Laurent Michel <<a href="mailto:laurent.michel@astro.unistra.fr">laurent.michel@astro.unistra.fr</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello,<br>
<br>
I agree with you Anne, except for the last sentence :-)<br>
<br>
In the Datalink context, I think it is important to keep seperate words for #meta-data and #documentation.<br>
#documentation relates to textual information on #this. A good example is given by the Vizier READMEs that provide the <br>
scientific contexte of #this.<br>
#metadata relates to a documentation that is required to process #this, e.g. WCS.<br>
<br>
One is supposed to be read by the user whereas the other is meant to by used for some processing.<br>
<br>
Laurent<br>
<br>
<br>
Le 15/09/2021 à 13:03, Anne Catherine Raugh a écrit :<br>
> Hello,<br>
> <br>
> Well, thinking about this at 6am without having had coffee yet...<br>
> <br>
> In the context of data, "documentation" and "metadata" are very nearly synonymous. The term "machine-readable" meant something <br>
> quite different when I started in this business (back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth providing tech support), but now it seems <br>
> to have evolved to mean what we would have called "machine-actionable". Even still that's not as clear a line as we might like.A <br>
> PDF document, for example, is machine-readable: it takes a computer to turn it into something that is human-readable and it is <br>
> also possible to extract text, tables, and other items from a PDF file. But I don't think anyone wants to see PDF headers for <br>
> data. Machine-readable headers are often human-readable as well, by design (like FITS). (There are binary headers out there in <br>
> some formats that are /not/ human-readable, but I suspect they do not show up in IVOA repositories as data files.)<br>
> <br>
> So, from my still-learning and yet aging perspective, I would expect that "documentation" would be the broadest term, that <br>
> "metadata" would be a subtype of documentation with the stipulation that it is documentation provided in a format that conforms <br>
> to a published standard that makes it machine-readable. "Header" would then be a subtype of "metadata" that is tightly bound to <br>
> #this, with the further restriction that it provides some metadata that is unique to #this (otherwise why carry it along?). If <br>
> we have a need to identify documentation that is not machine-readable (PDFs would qualify in the IVOA context), then there is <br>
> probably another subtype of #documentation lurking in the wings. If we require that all documentation be machine-readable, then <br>
> "documentation" and "metadata" are synonymous in the IVOA context, and there is no need for two terms.<br>
> <br>
> Coffee time...<br>
> <br>
> -Anne.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 5:26 AM BONNAREL FRANCOIS <<a href="mailto:francois.bonnarel@astro.unistra.fr" target="_blank">francois.bonnarel@astro.unistra.fr</a> <br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:francois.bonnarel@astro.unistra.fr" target="_blank">francois.bonnarel@astro.unistra.fr</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Hi all,<br>
> I know that VEP-007 will be discussed today and I will not<br>
> participate.<br>
> I got no answer to this email except recently from Markus in a<br>
> private discussion.<br>
> I am strongly in favor of the new term itself.<br>
> My small concern (with a proposal) is that as it is stated now<br>
> in "<a href="https://volute.g-vo.org/svn/trunk/projects/semantics/veps/VEP-007.txt" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://volute.g-vo.org/svn/trunk/projects/semantics/veps/VEP-007.txt</a><br>
> <<a href="https://volute.g-vo.org/svn/trunk/projects/semantics/veps/VEP-007.txt" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://volute.g-vo.org/svn/trunk/projects/semantics/veps/VEP-007.txt</a>>"<br>
> The head-term of #detached-header is "documentation".<br>
> I think that a head term like #metadata would be better.<br>
> This term doesn't exist up to now and I think it is lacking.<br>
> #metadata is different from #documentation in the sense that the<br>
> first one is machine readable while the other one is human readable<br>
> So usage by clients would be very different. Other example for<br>
> #metadata would be #ivoa-provenance-metadata and #ivoa-obscore<br>
> If you think this is a good idea I would like to add this term<br>
> either in the same VEP or as another VEP with the small modification of<br>
> head-term in VEP-007 itself<br>
> Cheers<br>
> François<br>
> <br>
> Le 16/06/2021 à 09:20, BONNAREL FRANCOIS a écrit :<br>
> > Hi all,<br>
> > Very interesting proposal indeed.<br>
> > I'm just wondering if we could take the opportunity to create a new<br>
> > #metadata branch .<br>
> > So that "#detached-header" would be a child of this head term #metadata<br>
> > Other children terms in the future could be #provenance_record (to<br>
> > attach ivoa provenance serailisation to #this), #obscore_record (to<br>
> > attche obscore metadata to #this when the dataset was not discovered<br>
> > via an ObsCoredelivering service) etc ....<br>
> > Cheers<br>
> > François<br>
> > Le 16/06/2021 à 09:13, Baptiste Cecconi a écrit :<br>
> >> Hi all,<br>
> >><br>
> >> I received an direct comment from Anne Raugh, and have updated the<br>
> >> Rationale of VEP-007 accordingly. I copy the new content of the<br>
> >> Rationale section below:<br>
> >><br>
> >>> Rationale:<br>
> >>> In some formats and archives, the metadata required to decode the<br>
> >>> content of #this is in a separate file. In the case of NASA/PDS<br>
> >>> data products, for example, the PDS label file contains the decoding<br>
> >>> metadata. In some archives, the FITS header may be stored separately<br>
> >>> as a plain text file, next to a data file consisting of a binary<br>
> >>> stream of bytes. Clients would use the content type (MIME type)<br>
> >>> (e.g.: application/x-pds4-label+xml, or text/x-pds3-label) to enable<br>
> >>> the processing.<br>
> >>><br>
> >> Cheers<br>
> >> Baptiste<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> <br>
<br>
--<br>
English version: <a href="https://www.deepl.com/translator" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.deepl.com/translator</a><br>
-- <br>
jesuischarlie/Tunis/Paris/Bruxelles/Berlin<br>
<br>
Laurent Michel<br>
SSC XMM-Newton<br>
Tél : +33 (0)3 68 85 24 37<br>
Fax : +33 (0)3 )3 68 85 24 32<br>
Université de Strasbourg <<a href="http://www.unistra.fr" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.unistra.fr</a>><br>
Observatoire Astronomique<br>
11 Rue de l'Université<br>
F - 67200 Strasbourg<br>
</blockquote></div>