Dear Miguel,
I found your comparison an incredibly useful and interesting exercise.
I think there should be a specific VO body to thoroughly perform
this kind of investigations and comparison, including applications,
protocol,
data model or registry compliancy, etc. because the lessons that can
be learned
should be considered of paramount importance in the development of
the VO.
But that is already known.
So, let me ask you just a question regarding your point (c.1):
you mention 3 specview requirements, but then only 2 points (i and
ii) are given
(unless you count c1 ii as two requirements, one for x and one for y).
I found any lesson learned so valuable that I prefer to ask what is
maybe obvious.
Was (ii) to be counted twice or (iii) was left in your fingertips?
Thanks,
Alberto
On May 4, 2006, at 14:42, Miguel Cerviņo wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I just send this comments that may be discussed in the next meeting.
> It is just a comparison about how different VO applications manage
> a SED building following the SED data model requirements.
> [...]
> c) Columns to be plotted:
>
> c.1) specview needs 3 requirements to plot a VOTable:
>
> i.- the Table must have a name (only VOTables with <TABLE
> name="whatever"> looks to work
> ii.- utype in x and y coordinates in FIELD must be specified
>
> c.2) VOSpec needs two (non-standard) <PARAM...> lines to
> specify the columns and only
> two columns can be plotted (i.e. do not include for
> example a column with errors that would be
> useful for both observations and theoretical data.
> [...]
> I hope that this comments would help to improve the applications
> and for the theory group
>
> best regards
>
> Miguel Cerviņo
>
>
Received on 2006-11-15Z22:25:52