Alberto.Micol at eso.org
Tue Nov 8 01:53:32 PST 2005
When we change UCDs we have to be careful, because those UCDs are
already used out there. The same is true for the parsing (or writing)
but I guess there is much less parsing software to change than there are
catalogues making use of those UCDs. (And the suggested s/w change was
Nevertheless, mine (the ending semicolon) is a lost battle, I accept
Overall, I think that the number of atoms should be kept small and
otherwise it become very difficult for data providers to assign UCDs in
Having said that, I like the new structured atoms introduced by
Jonathan (transition, state, species), exactly because "structure is
Instead, I'm a bit skeptical regarding phys.energy.density and
phot.flux.fluxDens or phot.flux.density.
It is tempting to use:
Would that be so wrong?
A couple of answers:
Sebastien Derriere wrote:
> The debate on the usefulness of the semicolon at the end of the
> was concluded by introducing this rule of "no word should be substring
> of another
> at the same level".
> The main motivation was that users would be reluctant to add a ;
> at the end of every UCD.
It is not affecting the end user, but just only the data provider,
or actually, more often, the software written by a data provider. And
the software is always going to be written out of the UCDs specs
I would have not seen any problem with the ending semicolon.
> With the suggested rule, UCD curators have
> to be careful when defining new words (what we do now, but only once
> hopefully), but users life is made slightly easier.
Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> but when you pass it to your search/comparison tool, a trailing
> semicolon gets added automatically
Indeed, if the parsing software knew about the ';' then there would
have been no problem
whatsoever. And VO is about software, not about human readibility.
More information about the ucd