So, it becomes a matter of degree.
I would argue, for the sake of simplicity of the registry, that it
contain a single "record" per resource, rather than a record plus a
full catalog of observations. In my mind, that part of the query
should be posed to the resource itself, especially since it is already
implied in the full query that goes in that direction anyway.
It also removes the necessity of making sure that the registry is
continuously updated with new observations.
Clive Page wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Arnold Rots wrote:
>
> > At issue is the question how "potentially" should be defined.
>
> Just to clarify one point arising from Alex Szalay's comments and yours -
> I don't think it is necessary for detailed information to be held in the
> Registry, as the best answer the Registry can give the user as to whether
> a given resource has the required information are just
>
> - no
> - maybe
>
> (because the answer "yes" implies a degree of certainty which the
> Registry, with its somewhat high-level view of metadata, can never have).
>
> So the spatial information in the Registry does not need to be concerned
> with exact edges, or chip boundaries, or other fine details, just enough
> to know whether the field was probably covering the (RA,DEC) of interest.
>
> It would still be useful to know whether one was within the typical field
> radius of the centre of some HST observation (if one were interested in
>
>
> --
> Clive Page,
> Dept of Physics & Astronomy,
> University of Leicester, Tel +44 116 252 3551
> Leicester, LE1 7RH, U.K. Fax +44 116 252 3311
>
Arnold H. Rots Chandra X-ray Science Center Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory tel: +1 617 496 7701 60 Garden Street, MS 67 fax: +1 617 495 7356 Cambridge, MA 02138 arots-at-head-cfa.harvard.edu USA http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------Received on 2003-02-05Z19:56:36