Hi Andrea,
> proposed requests (RFMs) to modify/add the present standard list of > ucd-words
Should we be gratified or distressed at the large number of proposed changes? :-)
I understand from the maintenance agreement, that the end result here will be a new list with an incremented version number. I don't see any discussion for supporting older versions indefinitely in service of content previously created. Comments?
> Other suggestions have been added to describe attributes used by > some Data Models.
Does this represent a change in the original coherent genesis of the UCDs as astronomical column headings? What does "some" Data Models mean? Do UCDs now have a mandate to support all IVOA (or even astronomical) DMs?
From the RFMs:
>> A complete proposed revision of the time branch can be found in a
>> TN at the end of this document.
I support drawing a clearer distinction between duration and epoch. What is the benefit, however, to keep both notions under the same "time" hierarchy? Why not, for example, simply "duration.event" and "epoch.event"? I'm also concerned that this list is growing too rapidly. Timelike modifiers will often appear in combination with other UCDs - they are more like adjectives and adverbs than nouns and verbs. As with other fundamental concepts, time descriptors should remain elegantly simple and sparse.
>> Other “computational” and “cosmological” words were discussed in
>> Victoria, also with the Theory IG. We need an input from them in
>> order to revise/complete the list
I have the same response to these terms as I do to VOEvent's - don't these really represent a different namespace? In particular, shouldn't the Theory group be maintaining this list if they are its primary target?
Rob Seaman
NOAO
Received on 2006-07-17Z17:35:33