The State of VOEvent

[Joshua Bloom]

Hi Rob,

  Thanks for the extensive summary. I will note on the time-series  
front that we've now been using for a few months an internal working  
scheme (not yet formalized into a proper schema) for time-series  
(which we call VOTimeseries). On the timescale of a ~week, I think we  
could pass around instances and a first hack at an XSD and let the  
group punch holes in it.  We could also expose to this group a  
warehouse of public data that has already been marshalled into this  
format.

	Much of the conditions and restrictions set forth at the Tuscon  
meeting as well as some of the structure of the Spectral schema are  
included (as well as Drake's first work on such a format). Our  
versions have been evolving with time as we ingest more and more  
public timeseries datasets and start learning how others like to  
describe their timeseries.

   Some limitations in the current draft:
     [1] No one in my group is an XML expert so we've likely screwed  
up some syntax.
         - we're not validating against a schema because there is none  
yet
         - we're not dealing with namespaces
     [2] We're focusing on optical/IR photometric data so we might be  
missing some obvious issues with other EM & non-EM reporting.
     [3] I'm sure we're not doing STC justice.

Attached is a teaser instance. It's embedded in another internal  
format we're calling VOSource (that's another can of worms).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SN 2000B.xml
Type: text/xml
Size: 6899 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/voevent/attachments/20080606/9dfde14c/attachment-0001.xml>
-------------- next part --------------


Josh


On Jun 6, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:

> Howdy,
>
> Thanks to everybody who participated in VOEvent related activities  
> in Trieste.  In particular, the great success of VOEvent to date  
> owes everything to Roy's able leadership over the past three years.
>
> VOEvent related activities are not slowing down, however, but rather  
> are poised to ramp steeply upwards.  No rest for the weary with  
> GLAST and Pan-STARRS and Dark Energy Survey and LSST and on and on  
> looming over us.  I'll describe the key near-term action items below  
> - as I perceive them.  If there are others, please speak up early  
> and often to make sure your priorities receive attention from the  
> group.
>
> First, another plug for the unique time domain observing opportunity  
> provided by our kind collaborators of the HTN:
>
> 	http://www.telescope-networks.org/cfp
>
>
> ACTION ITEMS:
>
> 1) Finalize VOEvent v2.0 by the Fall 2008 InterOp:
>
> A) A key item here is to enhance the VOEvent schema to better  
> support time series data.  The hope is that this can benefit from  
> the work done for the Spectral Data Model.  We will need a first  
> draft in the next month to be ready in time for Baltimore.
>
> B) Another item is to specify the correct handling of STC-based  
> orbital elements for our purposes.  STC is pretty clear-cut here, so  
> this will mostly consist of demonstrating our ability to capture,  
> convey and usefully present orbits from author to subscriber.
>
> C) Formalize the hook for conveying events from outside communities  
> using external schema.  This is already happening with the  
> Heliophysics Knowledgebase.
>
> D) We have pressed the Semantics WG to advance the vocabulary  
> initiative.  They responded admirably.  It is now up to us to make  
> use of this.  Let's wrap it up with a pretty bow and put controlled  
> vocabularies to use.
>
> E) KML support.  This may only involve allowing an explicit kml type  
> for a <Reference>.  It may involve more than that.
>
>
> 2) Initiatives in parallel to v2.0:
>
> A) Authentication.  The sense of the WG in Trieste was that digital  
> signatures not be embedded within VOEvent packets themselves.  Two  
> distinct technologies have been proposed.  Each has already been  
> prototyped.  Now we need a coherent pilot project to carry one or  
> both of these forward in a VOEventNet-wide fashion.  There is no  
> reason to create a signature if nobody will later check it - this  
> implies support of one sort or another within our browsers.  Let's  
> find a middle road between racing forward willy-nilly on the one  
> hand - and doing nothing at all on the other.  In addition, I'd also  
> like to evaluate a lightweight checksum scheme for use within a  
> packet, similar to the FITS Checksum convention.
>
> B) Registry support.  Roy identified two types of VOEvent entries, a  
> VOEventStream and a VOEventServer.  The first is a scientific  
> entity, the second a technical/logistical entity.  VOEvent can  
> benefit even more than most VO activities from registering our  
> resources.  We have a geographically distributed, multi-purpose  
> community seeking fully autonomous operations requiring short  
> latency, high reliability notification.  Such a network is not going  
> to be connected up manually like tinker-toys.
>
> C) SEAP - the Simple Event Access Protocol, that is - query for  
> VOEvent.  Transient alert astronomy brings two additional  
> requirements to query protocols:  the specific need to interoperate  
> seamlessly with resource discovery (in particular, multiple  
> repositories may host the same data), and the defining  
> characteristic of the community of issuing rules-based queries in  
> advance of the observations.
>
>
> 3) Ongoing activities:
>
> A) VOEventNet continues to grow.  In fact, transient alert astronomy  
> has involved a deployed network of resources since before the Trans- 
> Atlantic Cable in 1866.  Our goal is to provide a protocol that can  
> be used to represent any astronomical "event" - any report of  
> celestial behavior with a time domain component.  This carries  
> within it the implicit need to manage the network of publishers and  
> subscribers conveying those reports.
>
> B) VO-GCN is the NASA funded project to relayer the Gamma-ray bursts  
> Coordinates Network on VOEvent. We (Roy and his co-Is) plan to  
> submit a follow-on proposal for the next AISR round.  Much has been  
> accomplished, much remains to do.
>
> C) Collaboration with HTN continues, especially through the good  
> auspices of eSTAR, but LCOGT is coming up on the outside.   
> Autonomous observing assets seem a very safe bet for the future  
> development of the ground-based O/IR system.  They have long been  
> the norm for space-based observatories.  Several interesting  
> projects are in the works for other parts of the EM spectrum as well  
> as for non-EM experiments in GR, neutrinos and high energy  
> particles.  VOEvent should remain engaged with all such efforts.
>
> D) Recruitment of new partners with new event streams.  No need to  
> belabor this one.
>
>
> 4) Meetings in the coming year:
>
> - HTN-IV - Santa Barbara, July 2008.  A targeted workshop.
>
> - InterOp - Baltimore, October 2008.  Sessions?
>
> - ADASS - Quebec, November 2008.  Tutorial and/or BoF.
>
> - VOEvent IV - Western USA, Spring 2009?
>
> ...followed by more InterOps, ADASSes, SPIE meetings, etc.
>
>
> 5) Documentation:
>
> - VOEvent v2.0 standard (and schema) [Seaman]
>
> - VOEvent transport notes [Allan]
>
> - VOEvent vocabulary (as needed to augment IVOAT) [Hessman]
>
> - VOEvent Users Guide [all]
>
> [Lead author in brackets.]
>
> Only the first document is normative.
>
>
> Anyway, that's how I see the work in front of us for the near to  
> medium term.  Over the longer term, the heart of the enterprise  
> should shift from simply publishing, transporting, and subscribing  
> to event streams, toward semantic characterization and correlation  
> of the underlying celestial phenomena.  Autonomous follow-up will  
> begin to shade over toward more creative forms of machine decision  
> making.
>
> Please consider how your organization may participate in these  
> specific activities - and remind me of items I've neglected to  
> mention.
>
> Rob Seaman
> NOAO