Martin Hill wrote:
> Is there really a one-one conversion between UCDs and UCD1+s? *Both
> ways*? That rather sounds as if UCD1+s don't offer anything new!
>See http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/UCD/lists/ucd1-ucd1p.txt
That page gives the mapping between old UCDs and new ones, and it is basically
a one to one correspondence.
The problem is not that. The problem is that with the new UCD1+s
one can assemble various atoms in different ways.
While UCDs (old) were fixed, UCD1+s are modifiable by the data providers.
It is hence not possible to translate automatically from UCD1+s to (old) UCDs.
Alberto
PS: I remember to have asked the ucd version question in Cambridge, unfortunately
I do not remember the answer (aging). Francois, Sebastien do you remember your answer?
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Clive Page" <cgp-at-star.le.ac.uk>
>To: "Francoise Genova" <genova-at-cluster.u-strasbg.fr>
>Cc: <registry-at-ivoa.net>
>Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 10:36 AM
>Subject: Re: UCD1 to UCD1+ - one to one mapping?
>
>
>
>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Francoise Genova wrote:
>>
>
>>> > There is no one-one conversion between UCD and UCD1+.
>>> > Sorry to say it only now but it takes lot of times to try
>>> > to follow the discussion... Sebastien is travelling today
>>> > and I leave a more detail answer to him
>
>>
>> Sorry, that may have been my mistake. But I am sure I saw somewhere
>> recently a table giving equivalents for a large set of UCD1 values in
>> terms of UCD1+, but maybe this table was not complete, or only listed the
>> easy cases.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clive Page
>> Dept of Physics & Astronomy,
>> University of Leicester,
>> Leicester, LE1
Received on 2004-07-02Z18:00:14