=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_in_place_of_Herv=E9=28herve.wozniak at newb6.u-s?= =?ISO59-1?Q?trasbg.fr=29?=

[Santi Cassisi]

Dear Carlos

I have nothing against Miguel and/or any person of your group. You  
did really a very good job. The aim of my message
was just to say : "we need to discuss definitively about this point  
and to make clear to persons like me that have a very poor knowledge  
about
this issue the pro and cons of the various possible (suggested)  
protocols.
  all the best
  Santi

Il giorno 20/feb/09, alle ore 11:49, Carlos Rodrigo Blanco ha scritto:

>
> ------=neXtPaRt_1235126999
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
>
>> 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)
>
>
> ------=neXtPaRt_1235126999
> Content-Type: text/plain;
>
> INAF-OACTe
> Fortigate Antivirus
>
> ------=neXtPaRt_1235126999--
>

Santi Cassisi
INAF - Astronomical Observatory of Teramo
Via M. Maggini s.n.c.
64100 Teramo, Italy

Tel +39-0861-439713
Fax +39-0861-439740
skype: santi.cassisi





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/theory/attachments/20090220/fe37ab92/attachment-0001.html>