<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Hi Markus,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">A few comments.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Example: Solar/Space Weather people use SFU </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">as a really common and understood unit.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">I don't expect them to be bought in to use</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">10**-22W.m**-2.Hz-1 instead of SFU.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">So, if I'm to follow your reasoning, should </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">SFU be in VOUnits unquoted?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Or try to force solar people to use Jansky</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">(4 orders of magnitude away)?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">I might have mistaken something.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">It's not a matter of legacy (not here and I </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">suspect other cases exist), but some units, </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">derived from basic SI ones, are commonly used.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">How should we cope with that?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Let clients understand that all 10**-22W.m**-2.Hz**-1 </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">means SFU?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Adding extra metadata to define when it means SFU </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">and when not?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Cheers</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"> Marco</div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Il giorno mer 1 giu 2022 alle ore 09:48 Markus Demleitner <<a href="mailto:msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de">msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de</a>> ha scritto:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Marco,<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 09:07:37AM +0200, Molinaro, Marco wrote:<br>
> Goal would be: clients aware of these might use them,<br>
> unaware clients/researchers will just skip by.<br>
<br>
Would your expectation be that, say, astropy or unity would accept<br>
them?<br>
<br>
If so, I'd say nothing should keep us from adding them to the full<br>
list. If not... well, which clients would you expect to be "aware"?<br>
<br>
> - extra parsing step for those who want to interpret<br>
> them (remove quote, go on parsing)<br>
> - extra controlled lists maintenance<br>
> - (a sentence in VOUnits - §2.8? -)<br>
<br>
I'd add "seduction to madnes^Wusing creative units". I give you<br>
there's little we can do about legacy data, but for those we cannot<br>
always have ideal interoperability anyway. For modern data, on the<br>
other hand, exerting a certain amount of pressure to align practices<br>
of questionable taste with mainstream (or, even better, sane) customs<br>
will make things a lot simpler for posteriority. For instance, it<br>
would seem to me that with, say, decimal coordinates we are actually<br>
making inroads.<br>
<br>
So... I'll need quite a bit more convincing before I could see myself<br>
liking the idea of such a shadow unit list; I also note that there<br>
already is <a href="http://qudt.org/2.1/vocab/unit" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://qudt.org/2.1/vocab/unit</a> for the furlong/fortnight<br>
enthusiasts [oh: fortnight isn't even in QUDT].<br>
<br>
-- Markus<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="monospace">Marco Molinaro</font></div><div><font face="monospace">INAF - Istituto Nazionale di AstroFisica</font></div><div><font face="monospace">Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste</font></div><div><font face="monospace">email <a href="mailto:marco.molinaro@inaf.it" target="_blank">marco.molinaro@inaf.it</a></font></div><div><span style="font-family:monospace">tel. [+39] 333 33 20 564 [also Telegram]</span><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>