Mark Taylor wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Ed Shaya wrote:
>
>
>
>>Mark Taylor wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Clive Page wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>have seen little evidence of need for more than one. I think it would be
>>>>more productive to work on a standard way of expressing the notion of
>>>>upper (or lower) limits - something which is so far missing from most
>>>>astronomical formats.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>VOTable does provide such limits (MIN and MAX subelements of VALUES),
>>>but I don't get the impression they are widely used (I'm afraid none
>>>of my software writes them or does anything with such elements if
>>>they are present).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I don't think that those are meant to be used as upper limit or lower
>>limit measurements. They are metadata meant to indicate highest and
>>lowest valid numbers for the Field.
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>
>
>Ed,
>
>I think you can use it for either, according to the value of the
>VALUES type element. Sec 4.6 says:
>
> The scope of the domain described by the VALUES element (and by its
> MIN, MAX and OPTION sub-elements) can be qualified by type="actual",
> if it is only applicable to the data enclosed in the parent TABLE; the
> domain of a valid RA in the example above has the default type="legal"
> qualification.
>
>Mark
>
>
>
When you want to supply the min and max of the list of numbers actually
in a Table/Field, one use's "actual". This is still not an upper or
lower limit. One would need an optional attribute in the TD, as in
<TD limit="upper">12.3</TD> to specify u.l. or l.l.
Ed Received on 2006-06-23Z12:18:36