[Image Data Model]was Re: roadmap 2010-2011
patrick.dowler at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Thu Sep 16 10:22:43 PDT 2010
On Thursday 16 September 2010 09:31:27 Mireille Louys wrote:
> I think ObsCoreDM already covers the need to describe an image.
> I do not see the point in developing one DM for each kind of data product.
> Lightcurves description can benefit of the description of the
> Characterisation axes, and this the same for TimeSeries, from my point
> of view.
That sounds great and should promote the kind of consistency and re-use that
we need. I mentioned ImageDM but hoped this would be the answer.
Do you envision that the SpectrumDM will be superceded by the more general
ObservationDM (at some point)?
> Each model can be reused partly, not all axes are mandatory, and so
> derived representations can be defined and serialised either in XML or
> in VOTable.
At some point, someone has to define this derived model. Is that then the
responsibility of the application? For example, following the thread above,
would a future SSA 2.0 refer to the ObservationDM and SSA would specify
requirements and restrictions that capture the "use of the model"? That seems
consistent with current use of data models in DAL.
If a specific application needed some additional detail that was not covered in
the model, could it extend the model somehow? should it? or should these
things always be folded back into the main Observation DM? I don't have any
specific examples for such a scenario, but it seems bound to happen due to us
all not being 100% precogniscient or simply because a very specific part has no
general use and never makes it into the general model (which is tougher). More
curious how you see this being handled...
Tel/Tél: (250) 363-0044
Canadian Astronomy Data Centre
National Research Council Canada
5071 West Saanich Road
Victoria, BC V9E 2M7
Centre canadien de donnees astronomiques
Conseil national de recherches Canada
5071, chemin West Saanich
Victoria (C.-B.) V9E 2M7
More information about the dal