Re: in place of Hervé(herve.wozniak at newb6.u-strasbg.fr)

[Carlos Rodrigo Blanco]

> 1) I fully agree with the Herve'' s statement " something can not be 
> considered accepted if the others do not express their opinion"..
> I think that we should start a discussion (see below).

I don't even think that Miguel thinks that. And actually he doesn't say 
such a thing in his mail.

I guess that he just wanted to start this discussion. We submitted 
a note about S3, and we know perfectly that a note is not an standard 
(actually, few things in the VO are standards), it's just a proposal to be 
discussed. And it is a proposal that is fully described in a document, 
that follows the same philosophy that other VO standars, that has been 
implemented for several cases of interest and has been presented in 
several talks.

We don't intend it to be perfect (of course it isn't) or to be the full 
solution to all the problems in a "theory in the VO" context. So we are 
absolutely open to comments, discussion, critizisms and whatever idea that 
can improve it or change it to make it more useful.

But we don't really understand, either, why the SimDB/SimDAP iniciative is 
promoted to other IVOA groups as the "proposal by the Theory Interest 
Group" when we, at this group, haven't been able to really discuss it.

The fact, as I see it, is that this group has been always the "SNAP 
interest group", the "cosmological simulations interest group" or the 
"big numerical simulations interest group". It's not really a critizism, I 
think that we all saw it in this way, both the people interested in that 
kind of simulations and the people that were interested in other 
questions. In fact, other things related to theoretical models in the VO, 
like theoretical spectra models, were discussed somewhere else with no 
interaction at all with this group. Even at Cambridge, when Miguel asked 
about the group interest in this things he was aswered with something like 
"we are not really interested in that, if you are interested, it is your 
work to promote and lead that subject".

Only recently this group has started to be interested in other kind of 
theoretical problems that have been labeled as "microsimulations" but
biased by the original perspective (and it's perfectly understable).

Actually, I don't really understand why we should work in a unique idea or
protocol. I think that it is as saying that the VO should have only one 
protocol for observational data and that SSAP, SIAP, ConeSearch, Skynode, 
TAP, etc should work in converging to an only protocol.

But I'm making this mail too long, sorry.

I just hope that this series of mails is the begining of some useful 
discussion :-)

Carlos

> Some time ago, we presented in the theory list a Note describing
> the S3 protocol. It has been also presented in several conferences
> proceedings.
> We have be waited for comments, specially from SimDB efforts (has 
> proposed by Herve in his mail just after the fall interop). Since no 
> negative comment has been presented we assume that every body agree with 
> the protocol and its development (or at least there is no major problems 
> or real needs to merge S3 and SimDB) 
> Please, let us know if you don not agree with that. In the mean time we 
> will continue (and discuss in this list) further developments.
>
> I also would be very happy if any other iniciative post its development 
> in the list and inform the rest of the persons in the list about (and do 
> not re-invent  developments)