VOTable session @ Interop.Moscow
m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk
Wed Sep 20 10:51:21 PDT 2006
I agree with most of your comments,
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Alberto Micol wrote:
> But I think we should think of the usage of such a VOTable;
> the main aspect is not philosophical or aesthetic satisfaction,
> but a more pragmatic "how the heck will my parser understand what
> is written there"? :-)
especially that one!
About two-way references for linking STC descriptions with FIELDs:
> Why the double reference was not proposed?
> That is, to have both FIELDrefs in the group, and the refs in the
It is a possible option, but I would argue against it.
If you are saying that references may go either one way or the other,
then the parser has to deal with both possibilities, which is harder
than just dealing with one. If you are saying that they must go
both ways, then you have to decide what to do if/when you come across
a document in which the references in the different directions are
inconsistent with each other - check for consistency, signal an error,
make an assumption about which direction reference to believe, ...?
Errors in the document would become harder to track down (some
parsers would process a broken document the way the author expected,
others would not). We should not make it easy for document authors
to write broken documents (they'll find a way even if we make it hard).
> I think that would be useful, and leave more freedom to the parser
Freedom is not always a good thing! As a parser implementor
I'd generally rather have a well-defined job that there is only one
sensible way of doing than a number of choices about how to go
Mark Taylor Astronomical Programmer Physics, Bristol University, UK
m.b.taylor at bris.ac.uk +44-117-928-8776 http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/
More information about the votable