Hi, Miguel and all
As the specview developer, I would like to add my 0.02 cents to the discussion. In fact, I would like to warn about the use of specview to generate "valid" VO-compliant files.
The "Save as" and "Save" options write data in xml files (no FITS support yet) following the standards set by the Spectrum Data Model in its 0.92 incarnation. But the code is still incomplete as far as metadata goes. Not all valid metadata described in 0.92 is actually passed thru and ends up in the output xml file. Other errors and inconsistencies may exiist as well. My poiny is, don't take specview's output as a well rounded, finished example of a VO-compliant file. It's work in progress.
Besides, there were significant developments in the Data Model model since 0.92, and none of these are implemented in specview yet.
Miguel, could you please provide me with a copy of the HTS data from I zw 18? I would like to see what is going on. In the examples I have, the entire file generated by specview is read back, even when multiple tables are present. And, what exactly do you mean by "at least in ascii"? Specview supports a simple ascii table format, but that has nothing to do with the VO xml format.
Cheers,
-Ivo
Miguel Cerviņo wrote:
> Dear Alberto and all,
>
> I just tested with specview (2.12.2) to answer the question by Alberto.
> (I didnīt remeber if I had lost something in item (iii)
> The answer is about specview:
>
> i) it is needed a "name" in the table tag (or maybe in any other place)
> ii) it is needed the utype in X
> iii) it is needed the utype in Y
>
> so
>
>> Was (ii) to be counted twice or (iii) was left in your fingertips?