VOEvent session

[Rob Seaman]

On Dec 10, 2010, at 6:42 AM, Mike Fitzpatrick wrote:

> My opinions on the added complexity in 2.0 are well-known to the WG leads,

I guess it is schema complexity that is the concern.  Astronomical data products (such as astronomical "telegrams", whether represented using VOEvent or not) have all the complexity of their scientific underpinnings.  VO data models must capture this inherent complexity one way or another.  Are we to substitute a complexity of utypes for a complexity of XML elements/attributes?

> 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.

It is certainly planned that when a VO TimeSeries is standardized that VOEvent will interoperate.  In the mean time we have sought to interoperate with SimpleTimeSeries.  The IVOA in general should operate with an awareness of activities in the larger astronomical community.

> 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.

Matthew is renewing the pursuit of registry support for VOEvent.  SEAP has been waiting on VOEvent v2.0.

> 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.

Discuss away.  VOEvent v2.0 has always had the bar to cross of the TCG/Exec/RFC process.

> 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?

Sounds like a great idea.  I presume the VOEvent WG is not alone in encouraging those who recognize a lack to contribute to filling it.

Rob