On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Doug Tody wrote:
>
Yes indeed, and we want to avoid re-inventing the wheel. We want to interface with advanced tools, not re-write them if possible, however much more fun it is than the more boring bits of developing VO standards. There is a scientific need for tools to image large areas of sky, such as for CMB work or to visualise large star-forming regions like the Orion complex. However, I could not try and use these images to, say, estimate photometric redshifts! And when I am working on an individual protoplanetary disc in Orion which is perhaps less than 100 milli-arcsec across, the large scale tools and generic re-interpolation are not going to work. However the most powerful argument is favour of VOTable is the ability to retain metadata including pointers to more detailed information, as Doug implied above.
cheers
Anita
Dr. A.M.S. Richards, AstroGrid Astronomer,
Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, Alan Turing Building,
University of Manchester, M13 9PL
+44 (0)161 275 4124
and
MERLIN/VLBI National Facility, Jodrell Bank Observatory,
Cheshire SK11 9DL, U.K. +44 (0)1477 571321 (tel) 571618 (fax)
Received on 2008-01-23Z10:52:19