Patricio is surely right? There is a simple and added value to
the logic of the substring approach so please can someone provide the
justification that was put forward for not using it? A bit of extra coding
effort (if even needed as others have alluded to?) will keep the interface
to the more general user at a more intuitive level.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Dr Jonathan Tedds, Tel: +44 (0)116 252 3502 XMM-Newton Surveys & AstroGrid Science, Fax: +44 (0)116 252 3311 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, Email: jat-at-star.le.ac.uk Leicester LE1 7RH, UK http://xmmssc-www.star.le.ac.uk/~jat --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Patricio F. Ortiz wrote:
> Hi Andrea (et al :-)
>
> Well, maybe we should ask ourselves if we should ditch the rule! I
> mean, why is it that substrings are not allowed? Is it because of
> impleemntation issues (eg, recovering data based on UCDs)? I
> personally see little use for that rule (perhaps it was written
> without looking at the existing UCDs)?
>
> I see Alberto's point to go for the simplest solution, but I'd go one
> step further :-) :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Patricio
> On 11/7/05, Andrea Preite Martinez <andrea.preitemartinez-at-rm.iasf.cnr.it> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I received from the IVOA Exec a request to modify all UCD1+ words that
> > do not conform to what is said in the standard UCD document, i.e.:
> >
> > UCD1+ words at the same level in the hierarchy cannot be a starting
> > substring of another
> >
>
>
Received on 2005-11-07Z17:50:22