Re: sexagesimal

From: Roy Williams <roy-at-cacr.caltech.edu>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 08:58:08 -0700


Alberto Conti wrote:

>

> The adoption of a well known ISO standard or specification seems
> the most appropriate thing to do, instead of coming up with yet
> another IVOA recommendation that is just a poor compromise.

Alberto:

(1) I have tried to find existing standards, but ISO seems to have nothing. The word "sexagesimal" in Google does not show a recommended notation that I could find. Other information is from "people like us" (Iraf, Starlink, Vizier, etc) and recommends various output formats. In other words, I don't think there is a Sexg standard representation.

(2) The IVOA is a standards organization. Our job is to make standards. Obviously, our standards should not be poor.

(3) I suggest that many formats be "acceptable" to IVOA applications with wide inclusivity. If that effort works, perhaps we can think of a tighter format that is "recommended".

(4) Part of the effort here is to allow our customers to put multiple things in text boxes. If it parses to 2 floats, we assume long/lat in degrees, if it parses to six numbers, it is Sexg, or else perhaps it is an object name.

California Institute of Technology
626 395 3670 Received on 2006-09-17Z18:01:54