Draft note on STC in the Registry

[Ada Nebot]

Hi Markus, 

Thanks a lot for this Note! 
I forward your email to the TDIG for comments since I think it is of interest to the Time Domain community. 

I can see that the idea is to combine spatial, wavelength and temporal coverages to discover data. 
In general, I like the idea and looks like a simple approach. I agree with the chosen time references as MJD, TT, barycentre of the solar system.  

I would like to be sure that discovery for the temporal axes is not limited to day but that there will be the possibility of making a finer query, say down to the hour or the minute. 

Section 4
Further axes? As you mention one could add more axes, but something like redshift would already impose questions like: how was it calculated? Photometrically or spectroscopically? Personally I think this might complicated things. 

Other ref. systems? Indeed for SSO or moving objects it might not be enough. As minimal requirements for time series data we included a target name field. For SSOs we should follow the IAU convention, I found this https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/#inss <https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/#inss> 

Non electromagnetic coverage? Again, we thought about this in the time domain context and it might be useful to add Neutrino and GWs.  

Thanks,
Ada


> On 17 Jan 2018, at 10:58, Markus Demleitner <msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> Those who attended our session in Shanghai may remember my talk on
> how we can finally get proper STC queries against the Registry -- 
> http://wiki.ivoa.net/internal/IVOA/InterOpMay2017-Reg/reg-stc.pdf
> 
> I've finally done the various implementation parts to try everything
> out in DaCHS and the relational registry (at this point, it's only on
> the Heidelberg mirror, since harvesting the MOCs is quite a bit of
> pain).
> 
> Based on that experience, I'd now propose a roadmap for how we could
> move towards more-or-less universal declaration of coverages in
> space, time, and spectrum for the VO Registry.  I've drafted
> a Note that I'd like to upload to the document repository -- probably
> some time next week unless you want more time for discussions.
> 
> A draft of the note is available from
> http://docs.g-vo.org/regstcnote.pdf, the sources (that you're welcome
> to work on) are in volute at 
> https://volute.g-vo.org/svn/trunk/projects/registry/regstcnote
> -- this includes a copy of the modified VODataService schema that
> will later be part of the upload.
> 
> After this, I'd be grateful if you (yes, you!) could
> 
> (a) briefly review the thing to and protest quickly if you strongly
> disagree with the main points of the note?  Ideally, I'd like the
> note to represent the "rough consensus" that's traditionally half of
> the RFC process (the other part being "running code").
> 
> (b) perhaps look a bit deeper at the stuff if you're interested a bit
> more in the registry/STC borderline.  If you still feel comfortable
> with the note then, I'd be happy to include you on the author list.
> I feel a bit odd being the only author on something fairly
> wide-reaching, and certainly some of you out there had important
> roles in shaping what's written there during the past six years or so
> (yeah: according to RegTAP WD-20121112, it removed a first version of
> this...).  So: If you can see your name on this note, just drop me a
> note, and don't be shy or overly modest.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>            Markus

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/voevent/attachments/20180129/ba34a994/attachment.html>