Hi folks,
I've read with interest the new document from Sebastien and Andrea, and the comments from Martin, Alberto and Patricio.
I think that the new document is a clear statement of good principles, and is a significant improvement on the previous documents that have been circulated. I have only a few specific comments, but one general comment on skimming through the current list of UCDs
> http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/UCD/lists/
is that it still shows too strongly its origin in Vizier: a system that defines a specific term for a (b-y) Stromgren colour, but doesn't, so far as I can tell, provide a simple mechanism for denoting something as being an X-ray/optical flux ratio seems a little biased in its perspective to me. If UCD1+ is supposed to be modest in ambition, then my vote would be to have phot.fluxratio (or some such) and delete all the specific phot.color UCDs.
One strength of the new document is the discussion of the matching functions. I'd not been convinced of their practical utility before, but I am now, after reading the example given. It would be interesting for that table of mu values to include those from the other proposed matching function, just to indicate how similar they are.
I agree with Martin's suggestion that it would be preferable to use complete words, rather than abbreviations.
Patricio's comment about equinoxes is an interesting one. The same goes for units, of course, since they are also additional metadata without which the data cannot be used in a meaningful way. But modifying UCD1+ to include grouping of UCDs, as he suggests, would seem to be a significant change, albeit one that is attractive from many points of view.
I won't be attending the interoperability meeting in Boston, but I trust that the UCD discussion goes well there - it should, given that Sebastien and Andrea have given it a firm foundation with this document.
cheers
Bob Received on 2004-05-07Z14:55:02