Re: New UCD1+ for SIA protocol

From: Pierre Didelon <pdidelon-at-cea.fr>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:14:00 +0100

Robert Hanisch wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrea Preite Martinez" <andrea-at-rm.iasf.cnr.it>
> To: "Robert Hanisch" <hanisch-at-stsci.edu>
> Cc: "Doug Tody" <dtody-at-aoc.nrao.edu>; "Alberto Micol"
> <Alberto.Micol-at-eso.org>; "Roy Williams" <roy-at-cacr.caltech.edu>;
> <dal-at-ivoa.net>; <ucd-at-ivoa.net>
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:45 AM
> Subject: Re: New UCD1+ for SIA protocol
>
>
>

>>A comment on
>>
>>1) VOX:Image_Scale --> instr.scale
>>and
>>
>>2) UCD1+:meta.bullshit (Bob's message)
>>
>>1. In the list of ucd1+ that I derived, the atoms "image" and "scale" are
>>present in instr.scale and obs.image . To me the concept of scale in this
>>context is more important than the concept of image, then I supported
>>"instr.scale".
>>A much better alternative could be the definition of the new ucd1+:
>>obs.image.scale

>
>
> Yes, much better!
>

Does images always be related tightly to observation? what about an image loosely related to observation, obtained, as already stressed, by drizzle or anyother image processing task, or even "images" obtained by simulation and so no much link with obs.? But this is may be a too DM oriented view.

-- 
Pierre 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIDELON :@: pdidelon_at_cea.fr        Phone : 33 (0)1 69 08 58 89
CEA SACLAY - Service d'Astrophysique  91191 Gif-Sur-Yvette Cedex
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on 2004-03-25Z16:14:45