Dear Andrea,
I've been looking at the new UCD list. I have a question, some comments and a
concern.
question: I assume that the suggestion I made in Aug 2004 for "phot.flux.beam" should now be handled by "phot.flux;instr.beam" using the new "instr.beam" UCD? comment: I applaud the simplification of phot.color. How are you handling this in the Vizier tables with more than one color? Adding secondary pairs of "em.*" UCDs?
comment: The UCD desc for 'phot.count' still includes the comment "count (/s)" even though on Oct 19 you agreed on the feedback form that we drop the "/s".
comment: I second Alberto's suggestions on homogenization of things like resolution.
comment: However, On attempting to map the WCS keywords with things like arith.1_1, I think this is trying to take UCDs beyond where they should go (something I've been accused of myself!). That's what a UTYPE is for, to map it to a data model. All the components of cdmatrix are the same kind of thing and should have the same ucd.
concern:
On the comments page I also asked in August-Sept. 2004 for feedback on the
following proposed UCDs:
em.veloc.radio
meta.curation
phys.energy-density
src.net
I'm a bit disappointed that many months later a new list has emerged without none of these being addressed, even with a "well, I don't think this is sensible for a UCD". These were proposed not just for fun, but as things needed for the spectral data model document. I also still think that it would be a good idea if new UCDs were circulated for comment to the UCD WG "board" before the web page was updated, the process still seems a bit opaque and over-centralized.
(by the way, the automated emails we get with "A suggestion has been made for a new UCD" would I think be much more useful if the text of the suggestion was included, removing one step in the process, since I have the impression few WG members have been responding to them).
Best wishes,
Jonathan McDowell Received on 2005-05-09Z06:06:32