VOEvent session

[Mike Fitzpatrick]

Right, and yet we have <simpleTimeSeries> and new complexity being
proposed.   My agitation over this issue is no longer fueled by a lack of
sleep in an uncomfortable hotel with too much dried fish and seaweed
for my taste, but I still don't understand what <simpleTimeSeries> offers
that an extended simple table couldn't.

-Mike



On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Roy Williams <roy at cacr.caltech.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On 12/13/2010 4:58 PM, Mike Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>> So this added complexity appears to be for a single use case, the desire
>> to
>> pass light curves in the packet.  What if we have other use cases where
>> I want
>> to include a full spectrum so my machine can classify a SN, or a table of
>> orbital elements so I can predict a future observation, or the light
>> curve of
>> a moving source?   Where does it end?  And do we do it all with an IVOA
>> model of something or a custom simple version?
>>
>
> This is considered in the paper "Extending VOEvent for more complex data",
> with a number of examples, at
> http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/VOEventTables/20100323/
>
> The answer is that you can always link the remote data, but sometimes it is
> good to be able to send simple data along with the message packet itself. In
> the past this meant Param and Group of Param. The note suggests that an
> extension to Table is not difficult to parse and yet much more expressive.
>
> Roy
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/voevent/attachments/20101213/7b9309f1/attachment-0001.html>