Sebastien,
Yes, I had noticed that one but thought that maybe it should be preserved for a more formal and precise quality or, more specifically, the quality of the data. For instance, when you have two exposures, one of 1000 s and one of 100000 s, the score of the latter may be higher, even though the quality of the data in the former may be better. What it amounts to is that score and quality are notr quite the same concept. Data quality is a component but not the only thing that goes into a score.
Sebastien Derriere wrote:
> Arnold Rots wrote:
> >
> > SIAP 1.1:
> >
> > I had asked that SCORE (used to be GRADE) be included in the list of
> > optional input and output parameters and there seemed to be agreement
> > that it is a useful thing.
>
> Hello Arnold,
>
> If this SCORE is added to the parameters, there is one UCD that
> could be used: meta.code.qual is a quality/precision/reliability
> index or flag.
>
> Sebastien.
>
> --
> _______
> / ~ /, Sebastien Derriere mailto:derriere-at-astro.u-strasbg.fr
> / ~~~~ // Observatoire de Strasbourg Phone +33 (0) 390 242 444
> /______// 11, rue de l'universite Telefax +33 (0) 390 242 417
> (______(/ F-67000 Strasbourg France
>
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 2004-03-26Z20:35:45