Re: Comments on V1.1 - Future of VOTable (flame bait sigh)

From: Alasdair Allan <aa-at-astro.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:57:03 +0100 (BST)

> I think we've got diverted by VOTable because we feel 'we have an agreed
> format' but this is misleading. Effort spent on agreeing how a SED (for
> example) will be described in VOTable will be much better spent agreeing
> on an SED schema - there is no more work required in agreeing such a
> schema than in how it will be represented in VOTables, and we then have
> an industry standard way of validating SEDs, describing web services
> that take or produce SEDs, etc. We lose all that using VOTable as a
> starting point.

Yes! Absolutely! It's totally the wrong thing to do to try and overload VOTable to represent SED, spectra and time series.  

Al.

-- 
Dr. A. Allan, School of Physics, University of Exeter
Received on 2004-04-14Z14:57:26