The State of VOEvent

[Andrew Drake]

Hi Josh,

It's good to see someone pursuing this work.
I certainly agree the VOTimeseries is a more fitting title
than VOLightcurve. For instance, we should be considering that there
are also many astronomers working on various kinds of astrometric
timeseries that care little about photometry.

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Joshua Bloom wrote:
> Great. We can try to morph to utypes. Didn't know about that formalism...bad 
> me.
>
> The reason why I favor the name VOTimeseries over VOLightcurve is two fold. 
> First, we might eventually be describing changes in time that are not light 
> (e&m) but flux of particles or GW amplitude. Second, a given time instance 
> (essentially a row in a VOTable) might only have position and no flux info. 
> Right now we see time as the only mandatory field/column. Optional would be 
> flux, fluxerr, position, position error.

We should also include an optional element for measurement time uncertainty.

cheers,
        Andrew
--