VOEvent session

[Mike Fitzpatrick]

My opinions on the added complexity in 2.0 are well-known to the WG leads,
but I also promise to document them in the mailing list for the record and
yet more discussion.

What is more concerning however is the development of an IVOA standard
model for a Time-Series and the idea that VOEvent 2.0 will not be
interoperable
with that standard.  Similarly, a Time-Series access protocol is also being
developed and questions can logically be raised about whether a SEAP service
will/can allow the same sorts of queries of TS data from event packets, how
can
TS data in events be discovered by the Registry or ObsTAP, etc.  Given the
progress at this Interop, I think the bar to justifying the development of
a
"private" representation (or three!!!) of TimeSeries in VOEvent 2.0  has
certainly
been raised and merits more discussion.

Matthew left out the discussion about the role of Repositories and possible
impacts:  Repos are apparently not required to sync ALL events but can
choose
to store only certain streams, this leads to a complication of tracing the
event
trail since then all repos would need to be queried to rebuild the event
stream
for a particular originating event (if not, please describe how that would
work).
It is similar to the idea of a 'publishing registry' vs a 'full registry' in
terms of
search capability and harvesting, is the concept the same for repositories?
Without at least an IVOA Note explaining the role of repositories envisaged
in the VOEvent network it is hard to image how one might create a generally
useful repository, it is even more difficult to image how client software
might
create use functionality from the data available in these repositories using
IVOA standards.  Is such a Note forthcoming?

There was also some cheerful banter on the meaning of the word 'consensus',
but Matthew can attest I've said too much already today.

-Mike



On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Rob Seaman <seaman at noao.edu> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Neither the chair (myself) or vice chair (Roy) were able to attend the Nara
> IVOA InterOp that is just wrapping up today.  Matthew chaired the VOEvent
> session and tenders this brief report.
>
> I will refrain from comment at this point.  If you have an opinion, please
> make it loudly known.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Rob
> ---
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: Matthew Graham <mjg at cacr.caltech.edu>
> > Date: December 10, 2010 2:27:58 AM MST
> > To: Rob Seaman <seaman at noao.edu>
> > Cc: Roy Williams <roy at cacr.caltech.edu>
> > Subject: VOEvent session
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The VOEvent session broke into double figures in attendance - 11. I
> presented Roy's slides. Concern was expressed about simpleTimeSeries in
> VOEvent 2.0, particularly by Mireille. One development this IVOA is that a
> time series data model will be defined by Naples Interop and so why is
> VOEvent developing its own. Mike also commented on the complexity of VOEvent
> 2.0 (200+ elements to code) for developers. I encourage both to raise these
> issues on the mailing list.
> >
> >       Cheers,
> >
> >       Matthew
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/voevent/attachments/20101210/29e073fa/attachment.html>