From andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it Mon Nov 7 07:47:55 2005 From: andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it (Andrea Preite Martinez) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:47:55 +0100 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <20051107164755.cwtk98wgjvq8gkk8@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Dear all, I received from the IVOA Exec a request to modify all UCD1+ words that do not conform to what is said in the standard UCD document, i.e.: UCD1+ words at the same level in the hierarchy cannot be a starting substring of another that is, we cannot have phot.flux and phot.fluxDens As you know, the document at http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/UCDlist.html is in the PR status, and will be moved to IVOA Recommendation after an appropriate action on the words concerned. The rule mentioned above is violated for the following ucd1+ words: E | phot.fluxDens | Flux density (per wl/freq/energy interval) E | phot.fluxDens.sb | Flux density surface brightness Q | phys.atmol | Atomic and molecular physics (shared properties) Q | phys.atmol.branchingRatio | Branching ratio Q | phys.atmol.coll | Related to collisions Q | phys.atmol.configuration | Configuration Q | phys.atmol.crossSection | Atomic / molecular cross-section Q | phys.atmol.element | Element Q | phys.atmol.excitation | Atomic molecular excitation parameter Q | phys.atmol.final | Quantity refers to atomic/molecular final/ground state, level, ecc. Q | phys.atmol.initial | Quantity refers to atomic/molecular initial state, level, ecc. Q | phys.atmol.ion | Ion S | phys.atmol.ionization | Related to ionization S | phys.atmol.level | Atomic level Q | phys.atmol.lifetime | Lifetime of a level Q | phys.atmol.lineShift | Line shifting coefficient Q | phys.atmol.parity | Parity Q | phys.atmol.sweight | Statistical weight S | phys.atmol.trans | Transition between states Q | phys.energyDensity | Energy-density Q | phys.massToLight | Mass to light ratio Q | phys.massYield | Mass yield because of the already existing words phot.flux phys.at phys.energy phys.mass In order to reach a rapid convergence on the reformulation of these words, I?m suggesting a possible solution for each of them in the list that follows: Present Suggested new E | phot.fluxDens | phot.flux.fluxDens or: phot.flux.density E | phot.fluxDens.sb | phot.flux.fluxDens.sb or: phot.flux.density.sb Q | phys.atmol | suppress Q | phys.atmol.branchingRatio | phys.branchingRatio Q | phys.atmol.coll | phys.collision Q | phys.atmol.configuration | phys.state.configuration Q | phys.atmol.crossSection | phys.crossSection Q | phys.atmol.element | phys.element Q | phys.atmol.excitation | phys.excitation Q | phys.atmol.final | phys.state.final Q | phys.atmol.initial | phys.state.initial Q | phys.atmol.ion | phys.element.ion S | phys.atmol.ionization | phys.ionization S | phys.atmol.level | phys.level Q | phys.atmol.lifetime | phys.level.lifetime Q | phys.atmol.lineShift | phys.lineShift Q | phys.atmol.parity | phys.state.parity Q | phys.atmol.sweight | phys.state.sweight S | phys.atmol.trans | phys.state.trans Q | phys.energyDensity | phys.energy.density Q | phys.massToLight | phys.mass.light Q | phys.massYield | phys.mass.yield The other possibility for the phys.atmol.xxx group is to suppress the word phys.at Please let me know your opinion and/or your suggestions. Andrea ============================================================================== Andrea Preite Martinez andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale Tel.:+39.06.4993.4641 Area di Ricerca di Tor Vergata Fax.:+39.06.2066.0188 Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Cell:+39.320.43.15.383 00133 Roma CDS :+33.3.90242473 ============================================================================== From Alberto.Micol at eso.org Mon Nov 7 08:35:16 2005 From: Alberto.Micol at eso.org (Alberto Micol) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:35:16 +0100 Subject: In-Reply-To: <20051107164755.cwtk98wgjvq8gkk8@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <20051107164755.cwtk98wgjvq8gkk8@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <718d8e4897942ec4822d14397eb0ceb2@eso.org> Hi Andrea, Sorry to come back with this, but there is another possibility... If we state that each UCD word MUST end with the ';' character, -that is, even if there are no other subsequent words- then no UCD can ever be a substring of another one. Example: phot.flux; is not a substring of phot.fluxDens; The beauty of it is that no other changes are required. It is my laziness... I always prefer to change the least... Alberto PS: I send this email because I'm sure you are expecting it from me ;-) PPS: And I promise that this is the last time I mention this. On Nov 7, 2005, at 16:47, Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: > Dear all, > > I received from the IVOA Exec a request to modify all UCD1+ words that > do not conform to what is said in the standard UCD document, i.e.: > > UCD1+ words at the same level in the hierarchy cannot be a starting > substring of another > > that is, we cannot have phot.flux and phot.fluxDens > > As you know, the document at > http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/UCDlist.html > is in the PR status, and will be moved to IVOA Recommendation after an > appropriate action on the words concerned. > > The rule mentioned above is violated for the following ucd1+ words: > > E | phot.fluxDens | Flux density (per wl/freq/energy > interval) > E | phot.fluxDens.sb | Flux density surface brightness > Q | phys.atmol | Atomic and molecular physics (shared > properties) > Q | phys.atmol.branchingRatio | Branching ratio > Q | phys.atmol.coll | Related to collisions > Q | phys.atmol.configuration | Configuration > Q | phys.atmol.crossSection | Atomic / molecular cross-section > Q | phys.atmol.element | Element > Q | phys.atmol.excitation | Atomic molecular excitation parameter > Q | phys.atmol.final | Quantity refers to atomic/molecular > final/ground state, level, ecc. > Q | phys.atmol.initial | Quantity refers to atomic/molecular > initial state, level, ecc. > Q | phys.atmol.ion | Ion > S | phys.atmol.ionization | Related to ionization > S | phys.atmol.level | Atomic level > Q | phys.atmol.lifetime | Lifetime of a level > Q | phys.atmol.lineShift | Line shifting coefficient > Q | phys.atmol.parity | Parity > Q | phys.atmol.sweight | Statistical weight > S | phys.atmol.trans | Transition between states > Q | phys.energyDensity | Energy-density > Q | phys.massToLight | Mass to light ratio > Q | phys.massYield | Mass yield > > because of the already existing words > phot.flux > phys.at > phys.energy > phys.mass > > In order to reach a rapid convergence on the reformulation of these > words, I?m suggesting a possible solution for each of them in the list > that follows: > > Present Suggested new > E | phot.fluxDens | phot.flux.fluxDens or: > phot.flux.density > E | phot.fluxDens.sb | phot.flux.fluxDens.sb or: > phot.flux.density.sb > Q | phys.atmol | suppress > Q | phys.atmol.branchingRatio | phys.branchingRatio > Q | phys.atmol.coll | phys.collision > Q | phys.atmol.configuration | phys.state.configuration > Q | phys.atmol.crossSection | phys.crossSection > Q | phys.atmol.element | phys.element > Q | phys.atmol.excitation | phys.excitation > Q | phys.atmol.final | phys.state.final > Q | phys.atmol.initial | phys.state.initial > Q | phys.atmol.ion | phys.element.ion S | > phys.atmol.ionization | phys.ionization > S | phys.atmol.level | phys.level > Q | phys.atmol.lifetime | phys.level.lifetime > Q | phys.atmol.lineShift | phys.lineShift > Q | phys.atmol.parity | phys.state.parity > Q | phys.atmol.sweight | phys.state.sweight > S | phys.atmol.trans | phys.state.trans Q | > phys.energyDensity | phys.energy.density > Q | phys.massToLight | phys.mass.light > Q | phys.massYield | phys.mass.yield > > The other possibility for the phys.atmol.xxx group is to suppress the > word phys.at > > Please let me know your opinion and/or your suggestions. > > Andrea > > > ======================================================================= > ======= > Andrea Preite Martinez > andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it > Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale Tel.:+39.06.4993.4641 > Area di Ricerca di Tor Vergata Fax.:+39.06.2066.0188 > Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Cell:+39.320.43.15.383 > 00133 Roma CDS :+33.3.90242473 > ======================================================================= > ======= > > Alberto Micol ST-ECF HST Archive Scientist From pdidelon at cea.fr Mon Nov 7 08:44:28 2005 From: pdidelon at cea.fr (Pierre Didelon) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:44:28 +0100 Subject: In-Reply-To: <20051107164755.cwtk98wgjvq8gkk8@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <20051107164755.cwtk98wgjvq8gkk8@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <436F846C.3010009@cea.fr> Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: > Dear all, > > I received from the IVOA Exec a request to modify all UCD1+ words that > do not conform to what is said in the standard UCD document, i.e.: > > UCD1+ words at the same level in the hierarchy cannot be a starting > substring of another > > that is, we cannot have phot.flux and phot.fluxDens > > As you know, the document at > http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/UCDlist.html > is in the PR status, and will be moved to IVOA Recommendation after an > appropriate action on the words concerned. > > The rule mentioned above is violated for the following ucd1+ words: > > E | phot.fluxDens | Flux density (per wl/freq/energy interval) > E | phot.fluxDens.sb | Flux density surface brightness > Q | phys.atmol | Atomic and molecular physics (shared properties) [SNIP]... > Q | phys.energyDensity | Energy-density > Q | phys.massToLight | Mass to light ratio > Q | phys.massYield | Mass yield > > because of the already existing words > phot.flux > phys.at > phys.energy > phys.mass > > In order to reach a rapid convergence on the reformulation of these > words, I?m suggesting a possible solution for each of them in the list > that follows: > > Present Suggested new > E | phot.fluxDens | phot.flux.fluxDens or: phot.flux.density > E | phot.fluxDens.sb | phot.flux.fluxDens.sb or: phot.flux.density.sb The second formulation seems more logical but then fluxDens atom desapear, is this a pb? [SNIP] > > The other possibility for the phys.atmol.xxx group is to suppress the > word phys.at why not modifying phys.at.xxx group to phys.atom.xxx > > Please let me know your opinion and/or your suggestions. > > Andrea > > > ============================================================================== > > Andrea Preite Martinez > andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it > Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale Tel.:+39.06.4993.4641 > Area di Ricerca di Tor Vergata Fax.:+39.06.2066.0188 > Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Cell:+39.320.43.15.383 > 00133 Roma CDS :+33.3.90242473 > ============================================================================== > > > SY -- Pierre ------------------------------------------------------------------ DIDELON :@: pdidelon_at_cea.fr Phone : 33 (0)1 69 08 58 89 CEA SACLAY - Service d'Astrophysique 91191 Gif-Sur-Yvette Cedex ------------------------------------------------------------------ Aidez les enfants Tib?tains : http://www.a-e-t.org/jcparrain.htm ou d'autres : http://www.sosesf.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------ From ndelmott at eso.org Mon Nov 7 09:27:06 2005 From: ndelmott at eso.org (Nausicaa Delmotte) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:27:06 +0100 Subject: In-Reply-To: <718d8e4897942ec4822d14397eb0ceb2@eso.org> References: <20051107164755.cwtk98wgjvq8gkk8@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> <718d8e4897942ec4822d14397eb0ceb2@eso.org> Message-ID: <436F8E6A.3000107@eso.org> Hi, But what is preventing us from adding the semicolon as ending separator? I do apologize for asking a question that seems to have already been answered in the past, but I could not find the answer in the archive mailing-list and since I did not follow all the UCD developments from the very beginning, probably I missed something. Could anybody give me a pointer to a discussion or a very brief comment on it? Or is it maybe to avoid having a possible NULL word at the end when parsing a UCD, assuming the ending semicolon? Thank you Nausicaa Alberto Micol wrote: > > Hi Andrea, > > Sorry to come back with this, but there is another possibility... > If we state that each UCD word MUST end with the ';' character, > -that is, even if there are no other subsequent words- then > no UCD can ever be a substring of another one. > > Example: > > phot.flux; is not a substring of phot.fluxDens; > > The beauty of it is that no other changes are required. > > It is my laziness... I always prefer to change the least... > > Alberto > PS: I send this email because I'm sure you are expecting it from me ;-) > PPS: And I promise that this is the last time I mention this. > > On Nov 7, 2005, at 16:47, Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I received from the IVOA Exec a request to modify all UCD1+ words >> that do not conform to what is said in the standard UCD document, i.e.: >> >> UCD1+ words at the same level in the hierarchy cannot be a starting >> substring of another >> >> that is, we cannot have phot.flux and phot.fluxDens >> >> As you know, the document at >> http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/UCDlist.html >> is in the PR status, and will be moved to IVOA Recommendation after >> an appropriate action on the words concerned. >> >> The rule mentioned above is violated for the following ucd1+ words: >> >> E | phot.fluxDens | Flux density (per wl/freq/energy >> interval) >> E | phot.fluxDens.sb | Flux density surface brightness >> Q | phys.atmol | Atomic and molecular physics >> (shared properties) >> Q | phys.atmol.branchingRatio | Branching ratio >> Q | phys.atmol.coll | Related to collisions >> Q | phys.atmol.configuration | Configuration >> Q | phys.atmol.crossSection | Atomic / molecular cross-section >> Q | phys.atmol.element | Element >> Q | phys.atmol.excitation | Atomic molecular excitation parameter >> Q | phys.atmol.final | Quantity refers to atomic/molecular >> final/ground state, level, ecc. >> Q | phys.atmol.initial | Quantity refers to atomic/molecular >> initial state, level, ecc. >> Q | phys.atmol.ion | Ion >> S | phys.atmol.ionization | Related to ionization >> S | phys.atmol.level | Atomic level >> Q | phys.atmol.lifetime | Lifetime of a level >> Q | phys.atmol.lineShift | Line shifting coefficient >> Q | phys.atmol.parity | Parity >> Q | phys.atmol.sweight | Statistical weight >> S | phys.atmol.trans | Transition between states >> Q | phys.energyDensity | Energy-density >> Q | phys.massToLight | Mass to light ratio >> Q | phys.massYield | Mass yield >> >> because of the already existing words >> phot.flux >> phys.at >> phys.energy >> phys.mass >> >> In order to reach a rapid convergence on the reformulation of these >> words, I?m suggesting a possible solution for each of them in the >> list that follows: >> >> Present Suggested new >> E | phot.fluxDens | phot.flux.fluxDens or: >> phot.flux.density >> E | phot.fluxDens.sb | phot.flux.fluxDens.sb or: >> phot.flux.density.sb >> Q | phys.atmol | suppress >> Q | phys.atmol.branchingRatio | phys.branchingRatio >> Q | phys.atmol.coll | phys.collision >> Q | phys.atmol.configuration | phys.state.configuration >> Q | phys.atmol.crossSection | phys.crossSection >> Q | phys.atmol.element | phys.element >> Q | phys.atmol.excitation | phys.excitation >> Q | phys.atmol.final | phys.state.final >> Q | phys.atmol.initial | phys.state.initial >> Q | phys.atmol.ion | phys.element.ion S | >> phys.atmol.ionization | phys.ionization >> S | phys.atmol.level | phys.level >> Q | phys.atmol.lifetime | phys.level.lifetime >> Q | phys.atmol.lineShift | phys.lineShift >> Q | phys.atmol.parity | phys.state.parity >> Q | phys.atmol.sweight | phys.state.sweight >> S | phys.atmol.trans | phys.state.trans Q | >> phys.energyDensity | phys.energy.density >> Q | phys.massToLight | phys.mass.light >> Q | phys.massYield | phys.mass.yield >> >> The other possibility for the phys.atmol.xxx group is to suppress the >> word phys.at >> >> Please let me know your opinion and/or your suggestions. >> >> Andrea >> >> >> ======================================================================= >> ======= >> Andrea Preite Martinez >> andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it >> Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale Tel.:+39.06.4993.4641 >> Area di Ricerca di Tor Vergata Fax.:+39.06.2066.0188 >> Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Cell:+39.320.43.15.383 >> 00133 Roma CDS :+33.3.90242473 >> ======================================================================= >> ======= >> >> > Alberto Micol > ST-ECF HST Archive Scientist -- Dr Nausicaa Delmotte @..@ ndelmott at eso.org European Southern Observatory (----) Tel: +49 (0)89 3200 6418 Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2 ( >__< ) Fax: +49 (0)89 3200 6480 D-85748 Garching bei Muenchen ^^ ~~ ^^ http://www.eso.org/~ndelmott/ From jcm at head.cfa.harvard.edu Mon Nov 7 20:21:21 2005 From: jcm at head.cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 23:21:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Message-ID: <200511080421.jA84LL8f004051@sothis.cfa.harvard.edu> Dear Andrea and others, 1) In the first place, I never liked that rule. Alberto's suggestion could be implemented in the UCD-analysing software - in other words, I don't actually bother adding a terminal semicolon to my phot.fluxDens but when you pass it to your search/comparison tool, a trailing semicolon gets added automatically phot.fluxDens; This is a classic case of wanting to avoid writing 3 lines of code, and making things annoying for human readability and comprehension. 2) Nevertheless, the rule is what we adopted. > Present Suggested new > E | phot.fluxDens | phot.flux.fluxDens or: > phot.flux.density > E | phot.fluxDens.sb | phot.flux.fluxDens.sb or: > phot.flux.density.sb I agree that the second choices phot.flux.density.* are better. (Pierre - I don't think losing the fluxDens atom is a problem.) OK: > Q | phys.energyDensity | phys.energy.density I don't like this, since it's not a mass, it's a ratio. It's really talking about the composition of the physical environment (how much baryons, how much photons, etc.) Maybe phys.composition.massLight (or phys.abund.massLight) > Q | phys.massToLight | phys.mass.light Can you remind me what this means exactly? Is it a percentage, or e.g. an SNe yield of iron in solar masses? > Q | phys.massYield | phys.mass.yield I don't like suppressing the atmol element. It makes the UCDs too flat. We could just make them all "at" and explain that "at" includes "atmol". But if we are willing to make a bigger change, we can take something from the work of the DM At/Mol team: some of these items are species (atmol, particle), some are states (levels), some are transitions and interactions. I think it's clear that states and levels are associated with particles in a way that phys.mass.yield is not, so I would be in favor of > Q | phys.atmol | suppress > Q | phys.atmol.element | phys.species.element > Q | phys.atmol.excitation | phys.species.excitation > Q | phys.atmol.ion | phys.species.ion > S | phys.atmol.ionization | phys.species.ionization Q | phys.at.number | phys.species.atomicNumber Q | phys.at.weight | phys.species.weight > Q | phys.atmol.branchingRatio | phys.transition.branchingRatio > Q | phys.atmol.coll | phys.transition.collision > Q | phys.atmol.crossSection | phys.transition.crossSection > Q | phys.atmol.lineShift | phys.transition.lineShift > S | phys.atmol.trans | phys.transition.trans Q | phys.at.collStrength | phys.transition.collStrength Q | phys.at.damping | phys.transition.damping Q | phys.at.lande | phys.transition.Lande factor Q | phys.at.oscStrength | phys.transition.oscStrength Q | phys.at.radiationType | phys.transition.radiationType Q | phys.at.term | phys.transition.term Q | phys.at.transProb | phys.transition.prob Q | phys.at.wOscStrength | phys.transition.wOscStrength > Q | phys.atmol.parity | phys.state.parity > Q | phys.atmol.sweight | phys.state.sweight > Q | phys.atmol.configuration | phys.state.configuration > Q | phys.atmol.final | phys.state.final > Q | phys.atmol.initial | phys.state.initial > S | phys.atmol.level | phys.state.level > Q | phys.atmol.lifetime | phys.state.lifetime Q | phys.at.qn | phys.state.qn Q | phys.at.qn.I | phys.state.qn.I - Jonathan From hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE Tue Nov 8 01:28:59 2005 From: hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE (Frederic V. "Rick" Hessman) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:28:59 +0100 Subject: In-Reply-To: <200511080421.jA84LL8f004051@sothis.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200511080421.jA84LL8f004051@sothis.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <0F56C61F-8EAD-4A51-AF9E-53F3504D730D@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> > >> Present Suggested new >> E | phot.fluxDens | phot.flux.fluxDens or: >> phot.flux.density >> E | phot.fluxDens.sb | phot.flux.fluxDens.sb or: >> phot.flux.density.sb >> > > I agree that the second choices phot.flux.density.* are better. > (Pierre - I don't think losing the fluxDens atom is a problem.) Don't want to step on any radio astronomer's toes, but flux density is flux. Yes, I know, it's monochromatic flux per unit frequency, but where's the distinction between bolometric flux, monochromatic flux per unit frequency, and monochromatic flux per unit wavelength? Do we also then have to support the use of candela's, lux's, and the lot - also physical (even SI!) terms for the same things? How about (see, e.g., Mihalas): phot.flux generic net rate of radiant energy flow per unit area and time phot.flux.freq monochromatic flux per unit frequency, flux density phot.flux.wave monochromatic flux per unit wavelength phot.flux.bol bolometric flux phot.flux.Eddington Eddington flux = flux / 4PI I was going to suggest adding phot.flux.astr (that terrible factor of PI or /1PI, depending upon how you look at it!), but I won't...... >>> Q | phys.massToLight | phys.mass.light >>> > I don't like this, since it's not a mass, it's a ratio. > It's really talking about the composition of the physical > environment (how much baryons, how much photons, etc.) > Maybe phys.composition.massLight (or phys.abund.massLight) I prefer phys.composition.massLightRatio Rick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE Tue Nov 8 02:53:18 2005 From: hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE (Frederic V. "Rick" Hessman) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:53:18 +0100 Subject: phot.flux - an Addendum In-Reply-To: <0F56C61F-8EAD-4A51-AF9E-53F3504D730D@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> References: <200511080421.jA84LL8f004051@sothis.cfa.harvard.edu> <0F56C61F-8EAD-4A51-AF9E-53F3504D730D@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> Message-ID: <315AEB18-8F62-4864-864D-82DEBC808069@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> > Don't want to step on any radio astronomer's toes, but flux density > is flux. Yes, I know, it's monochromatic flux per unit > frequency, but where's the distinction between bolometric flux, > monochromatic flux per unit frequency, and monochromatic flux per > unit wavelength? Do we also then have to support the use of > candela's, lux's, and the lot - also physical (even SI!) terms for > the same things? How about (see, e.g., Mihalas): > > phot.flux generic net rate of radiant > energy flow per unit area and time > phot.flux.freq monochromatic flux per unit > frequency, flux density > phot.flux.wave monochromatic flux per unit wavelength > phot.flux.bol bolometric flux > phot.flux.Eddington Eddington flux = flux / 4PI > > I was going to suggest adding phot.flux.astr (that terrible factor > of PI or /1PI, depending upon how you look at it!), but I won't...... Sorry - should have re-read the 1.02 documentation: "flux density" has been generalized beyond it's normal use. How do we then distinguish between the many different forms? By units alone, i.e. non-UCD things? That works fine for things like lengths and times and masses, since the physical quantities are well defined beyond their units, but F_nu and F_lambda are totally different quantities and this fact is utterly independent of the units. Perhaps phot.flux.perFreq phot.flux.perWave phot.flux.perEnergy phot.flux.perWavenumber phot.flux.perDecade nu*F_nu, lambda*F_lambda,... Looking at the current list, I'd also like to complain about phot.flux.sb Since when is surface brightness a flux? Surface brightness is an intensity and intensity != flux. So... phot.intensity generic directed rate of radiant energy flow per unit area, time, and solid angle, surface brightness phot.intensity.bol (not generally needed, but here for symmetry) phot.intensity.perFreq phot.intensity.perWave phot.intensity.perEnergy phot.intensity.perWavenumber phot.intensity.perDecade (Ibid.) I know this is a bit of a change, but I frankly didn't notice before.... sorry! Rick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it Tue Nov 8 05:53:45 2005 From: andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it (Andrea Preite Martinez) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:53:45 +0100 Subject: UCDlist document update Message-ID: <20051108145345.trrx6vmck0oc8g8s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Dear all, after a first round of comments and suggestions, let me summarize: 1. I think it will be unwise to re-open the discussion on the already standard UCD main document (thus de-classing it back to WD) to ease the approval of a second standard, just because we are too lazy to find a reasonable spelling for a few words! 2. Let?s keep changes to a minimum. I found suggestions on the atmol and flux/sb words very interesting and worth discussing with more time and care. Shortly we will know how to do it ! (http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/UCDmaintenance.html) 3. atmol: I think the simplest solution in this particular case is to change the words phys.at.* into phys.atomic.* 4. ?obtorto collo? (we do it, but we whould have preferred not to do it!) we go for phot.flux.density* and phys.energy.density 5. phys.massToLight can become phys.composition.massLightRatio (indeed the ratio has to do with the barionic composition of galaxies or clusters of galaxies) 6. phys.massYield can become phys.composition.yield (also in this case the new version is better than the old one - mass just indicated units) I will wait for a few more days before changing the list of words. Cheers Andrea ============================================================================== Andrea Preite Martinez andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale Tel.:+39.06.4993.4641 Area di Ricerca di Tor Vergata Fax.:+39.06.2066.0188 Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Cell:+39.339.3817355 00133 Roma CDS :+33.3.90242473 ============================================================================== From Pedro.Osuna at esa.int Tue Nov 8 06:45:23 2005 From: Pedro.Osuna at esa.int (Pedro Osuna) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:45:23 +0100 Subject: UCDlist document update In-Reply-To: <20051108145345.trrx6vmck0oc8g8s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <20051108145345.trrx6vmck0oc8g8s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <1131461123.32035.196.camel@isol03.vilspa.esa.int> Dear all, on the phys.atmol subject, I'd like to see Marie-Lise opinion before you write any changes, as she introduced many of the initial UCDs for that. In principle, Jonathan's new names look OK in view of our own work on Line DM, but I insist that she should say a word on it. Unfortunately, she does not seem to be on-line, so: Andrea, can this part wait until we know from her? Cheers, P. On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 14:53 +0100, Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: > Dear all, > > after a first round of comments and suggestions, let me summarize: > > 1. I think it will be unwise to re-open the discussion on the already > standard UCD main document (thus de-classing it back to WD) to ease the > approval of a second standard, just because we are too lazy to find a > reasonable spelling for a few words! > > 2. Let?s keep changes to a minimum. I found suggestions on the atmol > and flux/sb words very interesting and worth discussing with more time > and care. Shortly we will know how to do it ! > (http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/UCDmaintenance.html) > > 3. atmol: I think the simplest solution in this particular case is to > change the words phys.at.* into phys.atomic.* > > 4. ?obtorto collo? (we do it, but we whould have preferred not to do > it!) we go for phot.flux.density* and phys.energy.density > > 5. phys.massToLight can become phys.composition.massLightRatio (indeed > the ratio has to do with the barionic composition of galaxies or > clusters of galaxies) > > 6. phys.massYield can become phys.composition.yield (also in this case > the new version is better than the old one - mass just indicated units) > > I will wait for a few more days before changing the list of words. > > Cheers > > Andrea > > > ============================================================================== > Andrea Preite Martinez andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it > Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale Tel.:+39.06.4993.4641 > Area di Ricerca di Tor Vergata Fax.:+39.06.2066.0188 > Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Cell:+39.339.3817355 > 00133 Roma CDS :+33.3.90242473 > ============================================================================== > > From genova at cluster.u-strasbg.fr Tue Nov 8 06:54:49 2005 From: genova at cluster.u-strasbg.fr (Francoise Genova) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 15:54:49 +0100 (MET) Subject: UCDlist document update Message-ID: <200511081454.jA8Esnx13829@astro.u-strasbg.fr> Hi, Marie-Lise is presently chairing a session of the French VO school. She will have a look ASAP Cheers Francoise From marie-lise.dubernet at obspm.fr Tue Nov 8 08:43:33 2005 From: marie-lise.dubernet at obspm.fr (marie-lise.dubernet at obspm.fr) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:43:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: UCDlist document update In-Reply-To: <1131461123.32035.196.camel@isol03.vilspa.esa.int> References: <20051108145345.trrx6vmck0oc8g8s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> <1131461123.32035.196.camel@isol03.vilspa.esa.int> Message-ID: dear all, sorry for delayed answer. the DM details are not final yet, therefore I would not advise to use the DM (even if UCD have no meaning without the DM). At present my view is to unify all quantities related to atomic and molecular physics under a single word phys.atmol.* "quantities related to atomic and molecular processes" A more complete list of UCD will be proposed once the DM is set "final". best regards marie lise On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Pedro Osuna wrote: > Dear all, > > on the phys.atmol subject, I'd like to see Marie-Lise opinion before you > write any changes, as she introduced many of the initial UCDs for that. > In principle, Jonathan's new names look OK in view of our own work on > Line DM, but I insist that she should say a word on it. Unfortunately, > she does not seem to be on-line, so: Andrea, can this part wait until we > know from her? > > Cheers, > P. > > > On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 14:53 +0100, Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > after a first round of comments and suggestions, let me summarize: > > > > 1. I think it will be unwise to re-open the discussion on the already > > standard UCD main document (thus de-classing it back to WD) to ease the > > approval of a second standard, just because we are too lazy to find a > > reasonable spelling for a few words! > > > > 2. Let?s keep changes to a minimum. I found suggestions on the atmol > > and flux/sb words very interesting and worth discussing with more time > > and care. Shortly we will know how to do it ! > > (http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/UCDmaintenance.html) > > > > 3. atmol: I think the simplest solution in this particular case is to > > change the words phys.at.* into phys.atomic.* > > > > 4. ?obtorto collo? (we do it, but we whould have preferred not to do > > it!) we go for phot.flux.density* and phys.energy.density > > > > 5. phys.massToLight can become phys.composition.massLightRatio (indeed > > the ratio has to do with the barionic composition of galaxies or > > clusters of galaxies) > > > > 6. phys.massYield can become phys.composition.yield (also in this case > > the new version is better than the old one - mass just indicated units) > > > > I will wait for a few more days before changing the list of words. > > > > Cheers > > > > Andrea > > > > > > ============================================================================== > > Andrea Preite Martinez andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it > > Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale Tel.:+39.06.4993.4641 > > Area di Ricerca di Tor Vergata Fax.:+39.06.2066.0188 > > Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Cell:+39.339.3817355 > > 00133 Roma CDS :+33.3.90242473 > > ============================================================================== > > > > > > From seaman at noao.edu Tue Nov 8 13:19:57 2005 From: seaman at noao.edu (Rob Seaman) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 14:19:57 -0700 Subject: UCD verifier? In-Reply-To: <200511080421.jA84LL8f004051@sothis.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200511080421.jA84LL8f004051@sothis.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Hi, > UCD1+ words at the same level in the hierarchy cannot be a starting > substring of another With the recent talk about the UCD1+ list not conforming to the UCD specification, I am prompted to wonder whether anyone is working on a UCD verifier - or perhaps one already exists? It seems to me that a tool would be very useful for verifying that a single token is a conforming UCD and that a list of same avoids various classes of name collisions and other errors. This will help individuals who want to suggest new UCDs as well as projects who may be developing their own namespaces. Rob Seaman NOAO From andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it Wed Nov 9 00:23:26 2005 From: andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it (Andrea Preite Martinez) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:23:26 +0100 Subject: UCD verifier? In-Reply-To: References: <200511080421.jA84LL8f004051@sothis.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <20051109092326.ve3i452crb6s4wgs@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Quoting Rob Seaman : > > With the recent talk about the UCD1+ list not conforming to the UCD > specification, I am prompted to wonder whether anyone is working on a > UCD verifier - or perhaps one already exists? Yes, try the validate tool at http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/UCD/tools.htx Andrea From seaman at noao.edu Wed Nov 9 05:55:26 2005 From: seaman at noao.edu (Rob Seaman) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 06:55:26 -0700 Subject: UCD verifier? In-Reply-To: <20051109092326.ve3i452crb6s4wgs@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <200511080421.jA84LL8f004051@sothis.cfa.harvard.edu> <20051109092326.ve3i452crb6s4wgs@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: On Nov 9, 2005, at 1:23 AM, Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: >> With the recent talk about the UCD1+ list not conforming to the >> UCD specification, I am prompted to wonder whether anyone is >> working on a UCD verifier - or perhaps one already exists? > > Yes, try the validate tool at > http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/UCD/tools.htx Thanks. Other pointed me to that, too. The rules and meta-rules for UCD building imply that each UCD fills a niche in a larger semantic ecology. Each new UCD causes a potential challenge to all previously declared UCDs or lists or namespaces of same. The tool I was suggesting would not only test a single proposed UCD against the syntactical rules, but also test a list of same (e.g., representing a namespace) against the rules for building lists of UCDs. I suspect that the notion that two namespaces cannot contain identical UCDs (or more stringently, was it identical "words"?) will fall by the wayside, but if not, it would prove useful - almost mandatory - to have a tool to vet two lists against each other, or for instance, a newly proposed list against all previously registered namespaces. Which is to say that the choice of rules for assembling lists of UCDs is not a completely free design parameter. Rob Seaman NOAO From andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it Mon Nov 7 07:47:55 2005 From: andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it (Andrea Preite Martinez) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:47:55 +0100 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <20051107164755.cwtk98wgjvq8gkk8@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Dear all, I received from the IVOA Exec a request to modify all UCD1+ words that do not conform to what is said in the standard UCD document, i.e.: UCD1+ words at the same level in the hierarchy cannot be a starting substring of another that is, we cannot have phot.flux and phot.fluxDens As you know, the document at http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/UCDlist.html is in the PR status, and will be moved to IVOA Recommendation after an appropriate action on the words concerned. The rule mentioned above is violated for the following ucd1+ words: E | phot.fluxDens | Flux density (per wl/freq/energy interval) E | phot.fluxDens.sb | Flux density surface brightness Q | phys.atmol | Atomic and molecular physics (shared properties) Q | phys.atmol.branchingRatio | Branching ratio Q | phys.atmol.coll | Related to collisions Q | phys.atmol.configuration | Configuration Q | phys.atmol.crossSection | Atomic / molecular cross-section Q | phys.atmol.element | Element Q | phys.atmol.excitation | Atomic molecular excitation parameter Q | phys.atmol.final | Quantity refers to atomic/molecular final/ground state, level, ecc. Q | phys.atmol.initial | Quantity refers to atomic/molecular initial state, level, ecc. Q | phys.atmol.ion | Ion S | phys.atmol.ionization | Related to ionization S | phys.atmol.level | Atomic level Q | phys.atmol.lifetime | Lifetime of a level Q | phys.atmol.lineShift | Line shifting coefficient Q | phys.atmol.parity | Parity Q | phys.atmol.sweight | Statistical weight S | phys.atmol.trans | Transition between states Q | phys.energyDensity | Energy-density Q | phys.massToLight | Mass to light ratio Q | phys.massYield | Mass yield because of the already existing words phot.flux phys.at phys.energy phys.mass In order to reach a rapid convergence on the reformulation of these words, I?m suggesting a possible solution for each of them in the list that follows: Present Suggested new E | phot.fluxDens | phot.flux.fluxDens or: phot.flux.density E | phot.fluxDens.sb | phot.flux.fluxDens.sb or: phot.flux.density.sb Q | phys.atmol | suppress Q | phys.atmol.branchingRatio | phys.branchingRatio Q | phys.atmol.coll | phys.collision Q | phys.atmol.configuration | phys.state.configuration Q | phys.atmol.crossSection | phys.crossSection Q | phys.atmol.element | phys.element Q | phys.atmol.excitation | phys.excitation Q | phys.atmol.final | phys.state.final Q | phys.atmol.initial | phys.state.initial Q | phys.atmol.ion | phys.element.ion S | phys.atmol.ionization | phys.ionization S | phys.atmol.level | phys.level Q | phys.atmol.lifetime | phys.level.lifetime Q | phys.atmol.lineShift | phys.lineShift Q | phys.atmol.parity | phys.state.parity Q | phys.atmol.sweight | phys.state.sweight S | phys.atmol.trans | phys.state.trans Q | phys.energyDensity | phys.energy.density Q | phys.massToLight | phys.mass.light Q | phys.massYield | phys.mass.yield The other possibility for the phys.atmol.xxx group is to suppress the word phys.at Please let me know your opinion and/or your suggestions. Andrea ============================================================================== Andrea Preite Martinez andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale Tel.:+39.06.4993.4641 Area di Ricerca di Tor Vergata Fax.:+39.06.2066.0188 Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Cell:+39.320.43.15.383 00133 Roma CDS :+33.3.90242473 ============================================================================== From Alberto.Micol at eso.org Mon Nov 7 08:35:16 2005 From: Alberto.Micol at eso.org (Alberto Micol) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:35:16 +0100 Subject: In-Reply-To: <20051107164755.cwtk98wgjvq8gkk8@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <20051107164755.cwtk98wgjvq8gkk8@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <718d8e4897942ec4822d14397eb0ceb2@eso.org> Hi Andrea, Sorry to come back with this, but there is another possibility... If we state that each UCD word MUST end with the ';' character, -that is, even if there are no other subsequent words- then no UCD can ever be a substring of another one. Example: phot.flux; is not a substring of phot.fluxDens; The beauty of it is that no other changes are required. It is my laziness... I always prefer to change the least... Alberto PS: I send this email because I'm sure you are expecting it from me ;-) PPS: And I promise that this is the last time I mention this. On Nov 7, 2005, at 16:47, Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: > Dear all, > > I received from the IVOA Exec a request to modify all UCD1+ words that > do not conform to what is said in the standard UCD document, i.e.: > > UCD1+ words at the same level in the hierarchy cannot be a starting > substring of another > > that is, we cannot have phot.flux and phot.fluxDens > > As you know, the document at > http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/UCDlist.html > is in the PR status, and will be moved to IVOA Recommendation after an > appropriate action on the words concerned. > > The rule mentioned above is violated for the following ucd1+ words: > > E | phot.fluxDens | Flux density (per wl/freq/energy > interval) > E | phot.fluxDens.sb | Flux density surface brightness > Q | phys.atmol | Atomic and molecular physics (shared > properties) > Q | phys.atmol.branchingRatio | Branching ratio > Q | phys.atmol.coll | Related to collisions > Q | phys.atmol.configuration | Configuration > Q | phys.atmol.crossSection | Atomic / molecular cross-section > Q | phys.atmol.element | Element > Q | phys.atmol.excitation | Atomic molecular excitation parameter > Q | phys.atmol.final | Quantity refers to atomic/molecular > final/ground state, level, ecc. > Q | phys.atmol.initial | Quantity refers to atomic/molecular > initial state, level, ecc. > Q | phys.atmol.ion | Ion > S | phys.atmol.ionization | Related to ionization > S | phys.atmol.level | Atomic level > Q | phys.atmol.lifetime | Lifetime of a level > Q | phys.atmol.lineShift | Line shifting coefficient > Q | phys.atmol.parity | Parity > Q | phys.atmol.sweight | Statistical weight > S | phys.atmol.trans | Transition between states > Q | phys.energyDensity | Energy-density > Q | phys.massToLight | Mass to light ratio > Q | phys.massYield | Mass yield > > because of the already existing words > phot.flux > phys.at > phys.energy > phys.mass > > In order to reach a rapid convergence on the reformulation of these > words, I?m suggesting a possible solution for each of them in the list > that follows: > > Present Suggested new > E | phot.fluxDens | phot.flux.fluxDens or: > phot.flux.density > E | phot.fluxDens.sb | phot.flux.fluxDens.sb or: > phot.flux.density.sb > Q | phys.atmol | suppress > Q | phys.atmol.branchingRatio | phys.branchingRatio > Q | phys.atmol.coll | phys.collision > Q | phys.atmol.configuration | phys.state.configuration > Q | phys.atmol.crossSection | phys.crossSection > Q | phys.atmol.element | phys.element > Q | phys.atmol.excitation | phys.excitation > Q | phys.atmol.final | phys.state.final > Q | phys.atmol.initial | phys.state.initial > Q | phys.atmol.ion | phys.element.ion S | > phys.atmol.ionization | phys.ionization > S | phys.atmol.level | phys.level > Q | phys.atmol.lifetime | phys.level.lifetime > Q | phys.atmol.lineShift | phys.lineShift > Q | phys.atmol.parity | phys.state.parity > Q | phys.atmol.sweight | phys.state.sweight > S | phys.atmol.trans | phys.state.trans Q | > phys.energyDensity | phys.energy.density > Q | phys.massToLight | phys.mass.light > Q | phys.massYield | phys.mass.yield > > The other possibility for the phys.atmol.xxx group is to suppress the > word phys.at > > Please let me know your opinion and/or your suggestions. > > Andrea > > > ======================================================================= > ======= > Andrea Preite Martinez > andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it > Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale Tel.:+39.06.4993.4641 > Area di Ricerca di Tor Vergata Fax.:+39.06.2066.0188 > Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Cell:+39.320.43.15.383 > 00133 Roma CDS :+33.3.90242473 > ======================================================================= > ======= > > Alberto Micol ST-ECF HST Archive Scientist From pdidelon at cea.fr Mon Nov 7 08:44:28 2005 From: pdidelon at cea.fr (Pierre Didelon) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:44:28 +0100 Subject: In-Reply-To: <20051107164755.cwtk98wgjvq8gkk8@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <20051107164755.cwtk98wgjvq8gkk8@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <436F846C.3010009@cea.fr> Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: > Dear all, > > I received from the IVOA Exec a request to modify all UCD1+ words that > do not conform to what is said in the standard UCD document, i.e.: > > UCD1+ words at the same level in the hierarchy cannot be a starting > substring of another > > that is, we cannot have phot.flux and phot.fluxDens > > As you know, the document at > http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/UCDlist.html > is in the PR status, and will be moved to IVOA Recommendation after an > appropriate action on the words concerned. > > The rule mentioned above is violated for the following ucd1+ words: > > E | phot.fluxDens | Flux density (per wl/freq/energy interval) > E | phot.fluxDens.sb | Flux density surface brightness > Q | phys.atmol | Atomic and molecular physics (shared properties) [SNIP]... > Q | phys.energyDensity | Energy-density > Q | phys.massToLight | Mass to light ratio > Q | phys.massYield | Mass yield > > because of the already existing words > phot.flux > phys.at > phys.energy > phys.mass > > In order to reach a rapid convergence on the reformulation of these > words, I?m suggesting a possible solution for each of them in the list > that follows: > > Present Suggested new > E | phot.fluxDens | phot.flux.fluxDens or: phot.flux.density > E | phot.fluxDens.sb | phot.flux.fluxDens.sb or: phot.flux.density.sb The second formulation seems more logical but then fluxDens atom desapear, is this a pb? [SNIP] > > The other possibility for the phys.atmol.xxx group is to suppress the > word phys.at why not modifying phys.at.xxx group to phys.atom.xxx > > Please let me know your opinion and/or your suggestions. > > Andrea > > > ============================================================================== > > Andrea Preite Martinez > andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it > Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale Tel.:+39.06.4993.4641 > Area di Ricerca di Tor Vergata Fax.:+39.06.2066.0188 > Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Cell:+39.320.43.15.383 > 00133 Roma CDS :+33.3.90242473 > ============================================================================== > > > SY -- Pierre ------------------------------------------------------------------ DIDELON :@: pdidelon_at_cea.fr Phone : 33 (0)1 69 08 58 89 CEA SACLAY - Service d'Astrophysique 91191 Gif-Sur-Yvette Cedex ------------------------------------------------------------------ Aidez les enfants Tib?tains : http://www.a-e-t.org/jcparrain.htm ou d'autres : http://www.sosesf.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------ From ndelmott at eso.org Mon Nov 7 09:27:06 2005 From: ndelmott at eso.org (Nausicaa Delmotte) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:27:06 +0100 Subject: In-Reply-To: <718d8e4897942ec4822d14397eb0ceb2@eso.org> References: <20051107164755.cwtk98wgjvq8gkk8@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> <718d8e4897942ec4822d14397eb0ceb2@eso.org> Message-ID: <436F8E6A.3000107@eso.org> Hi, But what is preventing us from adding the semicolon as ending separator? I do apologize for asking a question that seems to have already been answered in the past, but I could not find the answer in the archive mailing-list and since I did not follow all the UCD developments from the very beginning, probably I missed something. Could anybody give me a pointer to a discussion or a very brief comment on it? Or is it maybe to avoid having a possible NULL word at the end when parsing a UCD, assuming the ending semicolon? Thank you Nausicaa Alberto Micol wrote: > > Hi Andrea, > > Sorry to come back with this, but there is another possibility... > If we state that each UCD word MUST end with the ';' character, > -that is, even if there are no other subsequent words- then > no UCD can ever be a substring of another one. > > Example: > > phot.flux; is not a substring of phot.fluxDens; > > The beauty of it is that no other changes are required. > > It is my laziness... I always prefer to change the least... > > Alberto > PS: I send this email because I'm sure you are expecting it from me ;-) > PPS: And I promise that this is the last time I mention this. > > On Nov 7, 2005, at 16:47, Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I received from the IVOA Exec a request to modify all UCD1+ words >> that do not conform to what is said in the standard UCD document, i.e.: >> >> UCD1+ words at the same level in the hierarchy cannot be a starting >> substring of another >> >> that is, we cannot have phot.flux and phot.fluxDens >> >> As you know, the document at >> http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/UCDlist.html >> is in the PR status, and will be moved to IVOA Recommendation after >> an appropriate action on the words concerned. >> >> The rule mentioned above is violated for the following ucd1+ words: >> >> E | phot.fluxDens | Flux density (per wl/freq/energy >> interval) >> E | phot.fluxDens.sb | Flux density surface brightness >> Q | phys.atmol | Atomic and molecular physics >> (shared properties) >> Q | phys.atmol.branchingRatio | Branching ratio >> Q | phys.atmol.coll | Related to collisions >> Q | phys.atmol.configuration | Configuration >> Q | phys.atmol.crossSection | Atomic / molecular cross-section >> Q | phys.atmol.element | Element >> Q | phys.atmol.excitation | Atomic molecular excitation parameter >> Q | phys.atmol.final | Quantity refers to atomic/molecular >> final/ground state, level, ecc. >> Q | phys.atmol.initial | Quantity refers to atomic/molecular >> initial state, level, ecc. >> Q | phys.atmol.ion | Ion >> S | phys.atmol.ionization | Related to ionization >> S | phys.atmol.level | Atomic level >> Q | phys.atmol.lifetime | Lifetime of a level >> Q | phys.atmol.lineShift | Line shifting coefficient >> Q | phys.atmol.parity | Parity >> Q | phys.atmol.sweight | Statistical weight >> S | phys.atmol.trans | Transition between states >> Q | phys.energyDensity | Energy-density >> Q | phys.massToLight | Mass to light ratio >> Q | phys.massYield | Mass yield >> >> because of the already existing words >> phot.flux >> phys.at >> phys.energy >> phys.mass >> >> In order to reach a rapid convergence on the reformulation of these >> words, I?m suggesting a possible solution for each of them in the >> list that follows: >> >> Present Suggested new >> E | phot.fluxDens | phot.flux.fluxDens or: >> phot.flux.density >> E | phot.fluxDens.sb | phot.flux.fluxDens.sb or: >> phot.flux.density.sb >> Q | phys.atmol | suppress >> Q | phys.atmol.branchingRatio | phys.branchingRatio >> Q | phys.atmol.coll | phys.collision >> Q | phys.atmol.configuration | phys.state.configuration >> Q | phys.atmol.crossSection | phys.crossSection >> Q | phys.atmol.element | phys.element >> Q | phys.atmol.excitation | phys.excitation >> Q | phys.atmol.final | phys.state.final >> Q | phys.atmol.initial | phys.state.initial >> Q | phys.atmol.ion | phys.element.ion S | >> phys.atmol.ionization | phys.ionization >> S | phys.atmol.level | phys.level >> Q | phys.atmol.lifetime | phys.level.lifetime >> Q | phys.atmol.lineShift | phys.lineShift >> Q | phys.atmol.parity | phys.state.parity >> Q | phys.atmol.sweight | phys.state.sweight >> S | phys.atmol.trans | phys.state.trans Q | >> phys.energyDensity | phys.energy.density >> Q | phys.massToLight | phys.mass.light >> Q | phys.massYield | phys.mass.yield >> >> The other possibility for the phys.atmol.xxx group is to suppress the >> word phys.at >> >> Please let me know your opinion and/or your suggestions. >> >> Andrea >> >> >> ======================================================================= >> ======= >> Andrea Preite Martinez >> andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it >> Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale Tel.:+39.06.4993.4641 >> Area di Ricerca di Tor Vergata Fax.:+39.06.2066.0188 >> Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Cell:+39.320.43.15.383 >> 00133 Roma CDS :+33.3.90242473 >> ======================================================================= >> ======= >> >> > Alberto Micol > ST-ECF HST Archive Scientist -- Dr Nausicaa Delmotte @..@ ndelmott at eso.org European Southern Observatory (----) Tel: +49 (0)89 3200 6418 Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2 ( >__< ) Fax: +49 (0)89 3200 6480 D-85748 Garching bei Muenchen ^^ ~~ ^^ http://www.eso.org/~ndelmott/ From jcm at head.cfa.harvard.edu Mon Nov 7 20:21:21 2005 From: jcm at head.cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 23:21:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Message-ID: <200511080421.jA84LL8f004051@sothis.cfa.harvard.edu> Dear Andrea and others, 1) In the first place, I never liked that rule. Alberto's suggestion could be implemented in the UCD-analysing software - in other words, I don't actually bother adding a terminal semicolon to my phot.fluxDens but when you pass it to your search/comparison tool, a trailing semicolon gets added automatically phot.fluxDens; This is a classic case of wanting to avoid writing 3 lines of code, and making things annoying for human readability and comprehension. 2) Nevertheless, the rule is what we adopted. > Present Suggested new > E | phot.fluxDens | phot.flux.fluxDens or: > phot.flux.density > E | phot.fluxDens.sb | phot.flux.fluxDens.sb or: > phot.flux.density.sb I agree that the second choices phot.flux.density.* are better. (Pierre - I don't think losing the fluxDens atom is a problem.) OK: > Q | phys.energyDensity | phys.energy.density I don't like this, since it's not a mass, it's a ratio. It's really talking about the composition of the physical environment (how much baryons, how much photons, etc.) Maybe phys.composition.massLight (or phys.abund.massLight) > Q | phys.massToLight | phys.mass.light Can you remind me what this means exactly? Is it a percentage, or e.g. an SNe yield of iron in solar masses? > Q | phys.massYield | phys.mass.yield I don't like suppressing the atmol element. It makes the UCDs too flat. We could just make them all "at" and explain that "at" includes "atmol". But if we are willing to make a bigger change, we can take something from the work of the DM At/Mol team: some of these items are species (atmol, particle), some are states (levels), some are transitions and interactions. I think it's clear that states and levels are associated with particles in a way that phys.mass.yield is not, so I would be in favor of > Q | phys.atmol | suppress > Q | phys.atmol.element | phys.species.element > Q | phys.atmol.excitation | phys.species.excitation > Q | phys.atmol.ion | phys.species.ion > S | phys.atmol.ionization | phys.species.ionization Q | phys.at.number | phys.species.atomicNumber Q | phys.at.weight | phys.species.weight > Q | phys.atmol.branchingRatio | phys.transition.branchingRatio > Q | phys.atmol.coll | phys.transition.collision > Q | phys.atmol.crossSection | phys.transition.crossSection > Q | phys.atmol.lineShift | phys.transition.lineShift > S | phys.atmol.trans | phys.transition.trans Q | phys.at.collStrength | phys.transition.collStrength Q | phys.at.damping | phys.transition.damping Q | phys.at.lande | phys.transition.Lande factor Q | phys.at.oscStrength | phys.transition.oscStrength Q | phys.at.radiationType | phys.transition.radiationType Q | phys.at.term | phys.transition.term Q | phys.at.transProb | phys.transition.prob Q | phys.at.wOscStrength | phys.transition.wOscStrength > Q | phys.atmol.parity | phys.state.parity > Q | phys.atmol.sweight | phys.state.sweight > Q | phys.atmol.configuration | phys.state.configuration > Q | phys.atmol.final | phys.state.final > Q | phys.atmol.initial | phys.state.initial > S | phys.atmol.level | phys.state.level > Q | phys.atmol.lifetime | phys.state.lifetime Q | phys.at.qn | phys.state.qn Q | phys.at.qn.I | phys.state.qn.I - Jonathan From hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE Tue Nov 8 01:28:59 2005 From: hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE (Frederic V. "Rick" Hessman) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:28:59 +0100 Subject: In-Reply-To: <200511080421.jA84LL8f004051@sothis.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200511080421.jA84LL8f004051@sothis.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <0F56C61F-8EAD-4A51-AF9E-53F3504D730D@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> > >> Present Suggested new >> E | phot.fluxDens | phot.flux.fluxDens or: >> phot.flux.density >> E | phot.fluxDens.sb | phot.flux.fluxDens.sb or: >> phot.flux.density.sb >> > > I agree that the second choices phot.flux.density.* are better. > (Pierre - I don't think losing the fluxDens atom is a problem.) Don't want to step on any radio astronomer's toes, but flux density is flux. Yes, I know, it's monochromatic flux per unit frequency, but where's the distinction between bolometric flux, monochromatic flux per unit frequency, and monochromatic flux per unit wavelength? Do we also then have to support the use of candela's, lux's, and the lot - also physical (even SI!) terms for the same things? How about (see, e.g., Mihalas): phot.flux generic net rate of radiant energy flow per unit area and time phot.flux.freq monochromatic flux per unit frequency, flux density phot.flux.wave monochromatic flux per unit wavelength phot.flux.bol bolometric flux phot.flux.Eddington Eddington flux = flux / 4PI I was going to suggest adding phot.flux.astr (that terrible factor of PI or /1PI, depending upon how you look at it!), but I won't...... >>> Q | phys.massToLight | phys.mass.light >>> > I don't like this, since it's not a mass, it's a ratio. > It's really talking about the composition of the physical > environment (how much baryons, how much photons, etc.) > Maybe phys.composition.massLight (or phys.abund.massLight) I prefer phys.composition.massLightRatio Rick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE Tue Nov 8 02:53:18 2005 From: hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE (Frederic V. "Rick" Hessman) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:53:18 +0100 Subject: phot.flux - an Addendum In-Reply-To: <0F56C61F-8EAD-4A51-AF9E-53F3504D730D@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> References: <200511080421.jA84LL8f004051@sothis.cfa.harvard.edu> <0F56C61F-8EAD-4A51-AF9E-53F3504D730D@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> Message-ID: <315AEB18-8F62-4864-864D-82DEBC808069@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> > Don't want to step on any radio astronomer's toes, but flux density > is flux. Yes, I know, it's monochromatic flux per unit > frequency, but where's the distinction between bolometric flux, > monochromatic flux per unit frequency, and monochromatic flux per > unit wavelength? Do we also then have to support the use of > candela's, lux's, and the lot - also physical (even SI!) terms for > the same things? How about (see, e.g., Mihalas): > > phot.flux generic net rate of radiant > energy flow per unit area and time > phot.flux.freq monochromatic flux per unit > frequency, flux density > phot.flux.wave monochromatic flux per unit wavelength > phot.flux.bol bolometric flux > phot.flux.Eddington Eddington flux = flux / 4PI > > I was going to suggest adding phot.flux.astr (that terrible factor > of PI or /1PI, depending upon how you look at it!), but I won't...... Sorry - should have re-read the 1.02 documentation: "flux density" has been generalized beyond it's normal use. How do we then distinguish between the many different forms? By units alone, i.e. non-UCD things? That works fine for things like lengths and times and masses, since the physical quantities are well defined beyond their units, but F_nu and F_lambda are totally different quantities and this fact is utterly independent of the units. Perhaps phot.flux.perFreq phot.flux.perWave phot.flux.perEnergy phot.flux.perWavenumber phot.flux.perDecade nu*F_nu, lambda*F_lambda,... Looking at the current list, I'd also like to complain about phot.flux.sb Since when is surface brightness a flux? Surface brightness is an intensity and intensity != flux. So... phot.intensity generic directed rate of radiant energy flow per unit area, time, and solid angle, surface brightness phot.intensity.bol (not generally needed, but here for symmetry) phot.intensity.perFreq phot.intensity.perWave phot.intensity.perEnergy phot.intensity.perWavenumber phot.intensity.perDecade (Ibid.) I know this is a bit of a change, but I frankly didn't notice before.... sorry! Rick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it Tue Nov 8 05:53:45 2005 From: andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it (Andrea Preite Martinez) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:53:45 +0100 Subject: UCDlist document update Message-ID: <20051108145345.trrx6vmck0oc8g8s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Dear all, after a first round of comments and suggestions, let me summarize: 1. I think it will be unwise to re-open the discussion on the already standard UCD main document (thus de-classing it back to WD) to ease the approval of a second standard, just because we are too lazy to find a reasonable spelling for a few words! 2. Let?s keep changes to a minimum. I found suggestions on the atmol and flux/sb words very interesting and worth discussing with more time and care. Shortly we will know how to do it ! (http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/UCDmaintenance.html) 3. atmol: I think the simplest solution in this particular case is to change the words phys.at.* into phys.atomic.* 4. ?obtorto collo? (we do it, but we whould have preferred not to do it!) we go for phot.flux.density* and phys.energy.density 5. phys.massToLight can become phys.composition.massLightRatio (indeed the ratio has to do with the barionic composition of galaxies or clusters of galaxies) 6. phys.massYield can become phys.composition.yield (also in this case the new version is better than the old one - mass just indicated units) I will wait for a few more days before changing the list of words. Cheers Andrea ============================================================================== Andrea Preite Martinez andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale Tel.:+39.06.4993.4641 Area di Ricerca di Tor Vergata Fax.:+39.06.2066.0188 Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Cell:+39.339.3817355 00133 Roma CDS :+33.3.90242473 ============================================================================== From Pedro.Osuna at esa.int Tue Nov 8 06:45:23 2005 From: Pedro.Osuna at esa.int (Pedro Osuna) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:45:23 +0100 Subject: UCDlist document update In-Reply-To: <20051108145345.trrx6vmck0oc8g8s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <20051108145345.trrx6vmck0oc8g8s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <1131461123.32035.196.camel@isol03.vilspa.esa.int> Dear all, on the phys.atmol subject, I'd like to see Marie-Lise opinion before you write any changes, as she introduced many of the initial UCDs for that. In principle, Jonathan's new names look OK in view of our own work on Line DM, but I insist that she should say a word on it. Unfortunately, she does not seem to be on-line, so: Andrea, can this part wait until we know from her? Cheers, P. On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 14:53 +0100, Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: > Dear all, > > after a first round of comments and suggestions, let me summarize: > > 1. I think it will be unwise to re-open the discussion on the already > standard UCD main document (thus de-classing it back to WD) to ease the > approval of a second standard, just because we are too lazy to find a > reasonable spelling for a few words! > > 2. Let?s keep changes to a minimum. I found suggestions on the atmol > and flux/sb words very interesting and worth discussing with more time > and care. Shortly we will know how to do it ! > (http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/UCDmaintenance.html) > > 3. atmol: I think the simplest solution in this particular case is to > change the words phys.at.* into phys.atomic.* > > 4. ?obtorto collo? (we do it, but we whould have preferred not to do > it!) we go for phot.flux.density* and phys.energy.density > > 5. phys.massToLight can become phys.composition.massLightRatio (indeed > the ratio has to do with the barionic composition of galaxies or > clusters of galaxies) > > 6. phys.massYield can become phys.composition.yield (also in this case > the new version is better than the old one - mass just indicated units) > > I will wait for a few more days before changing the list of words. > > Cheers > > Andrea > > > ============================================================================== > Andrea Preite Martinez andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it > Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale Tel.:+39.06.4993.4641 > Area di Ricerca di Tor Vergata Fax.:+39.06.2066.0188 > Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Cell:+39.339.3817355 > 00133 Roma CDS :+33.3.90242473 > ============================================================================== > > From genova at cluster.u-strasbg.fr Tue Nov 8 06:54:49 2005 From: genova at cluster.u-strasbg.fr (Francoise Genova) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 15:54:49 +0100 (MET) Subject: UCDlist document update Message-ID: <200511081454.jA8Esnx13829@astro.u-strasbg.fr> Hi, Marie-Lise is presently chairing a session of the French VO school. She will have a look ASAP Cheers Francoise From marie-lise.dubernet at obspm.fr Tue Nov 8 08:43:33 2005 From: marie-lise.dubernet at obspm.fr (marie-lise.dubernet at obspm.fr) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:43:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: UCDlist document update In-Reply-To: <1131461123.32035.196.camel@isol03.vilspa.esa.int> References: <20051108145345.trrx6vmck0oc8g8s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> <1131461123.32035.196.camel@isol03.vilspa.esa.int> Message-ID: dear all, sorry for delayed answer. the DM details are not final yet, therefore I would not advise to use the DM (even if UCD have no meaning without the DM). At present my view is to unify all quantities related to atomic and molecular physics under a single word phys.atmol.* "quantities related to atomic and molecular processes" A more complete list of UCD will be proposed once the DM is set "final". best regards marie lise On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Pedro Osuna wrote: > Dear all, > > on the phys.atmol subject, I'd like to see Marie-Lise opinion before you > write any changes, as she introduced many of the initial UCDs for that. > In principle, Jonathan's new names look OK in view of our own work on > Line DM, but I insist that she should say a word on it. Unfortunately, > she does not seem to be on-line, so: Andrea, can this part wait until we > know from her? > > Cheers, > P. > > > On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 14:53 +0100, Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > after a first round of comments and suggestions, let me summarize: > > > > 1. I think it will be unwise to re-open the discussion on the already > > standard UCD main document (thus de-classing it back to WD) to ease the > > approval of a second standard, just because we are too lazy to find a > > reasonable spelling for a few words! > > > > 2. Let?s keep changes to a minimum. I found suggestions on the atmol > > and flux/sb words very interesting and worth discussing with more time > > and care. Shortly we will know how to do it ! > > (http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/UCDmaintenance.html) > > > > 3. atmol: I think the simplest solution in this particular case is to > > change the words phys.at.* into phys.atomic.* > > > > 4. ?obtorto collo? (we do it, but we whould have preferred not to do > > it!) we go for phot.flux.density* and phys.energy.density > > > > 5. phys.massToLight can become phys.composition.massLightRatio (indeed > > the ratio has to do with the barionic composition of galaxies or > > clusters of galaxies) > > > > 6. phys.massYield can become phys.composition.yield (also in this case > > the new version is better than the old one - mass just indicated units) > > > > I will wait for a few more days before changing the list of words. > > > > Cheers > > > > Andrea > > > > > > ============================================================================== > > Andrea Preite Martinez andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it > > Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale Tel.:+39.06.4993.4641 > > Area di Ricerca di Tor Vergata Fax.:+39.06.2066.0188 > > Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Cell:+39.339.3817355 > > 00133 Roma CDS :+33.3.90242473 > > ============================================================================== > > > > > > From seaman at noao.edu Tue Nov 8 13:19:57 2005 From: seaman at noao.edu (Rob Seaman) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 14:19:57 -0700 Subject: UCD verifier? In-Reply-To: <200511080421.jA84LL8f004051@sothis.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200511080421.jA84LL8f004051@sothis.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Hi, > UCD1+ words at the same level in the hierarchy cannot be a starting > substring of another With the recent talk about the UCD1+ list not conforming to the UCD specification, I am prompted to wonder whether anyone is working on a UCD verifier - or perhaps one already exists? It seems to me that a tool would be very useful for verifying that a single token is a conforming UCD and that a list of same avoids various classes of name collisions and other errors. This will help individuals who want to suggest new UCDs as well as projects who may be developing their own namespaces. Rob Seaman NOAO From andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it Wed Nov 9 00:23:26 2005 From: andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it (Andrea Preite Martinez) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:23:26 +0100 Subject: UCD verifier? In-Reply-To: References: <200511080421.jA84LL8f004051@sothis.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <20051109092326.ve3i452crb6s4wgs@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Quoting Rob Seaman : > > With the recent talk about the UCD1+ list not conforming to the UCD > specification, I am prompted to wonder whether anyone is working on a > UCD verifier - or perhaps one already exists? Yes, try the validate tool at http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/UCD/tools.htx Andrea From seaman at noao.edu Wed Nov 9 05:55:26 2005 From: seaman at noao.edu (Rob Seaman) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 06:55:26 -0700 Subject: UCD verifier? In-Reply-To: <20051109092326.ve3i452crb6s4wgs@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <200511080421.jA84LL8f004051@sothis.cfa.harvard.edu> <20051109092326.ve3i452crb6s4wgs@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: On Nov 9, 2005, at 1:23 AM, Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: >> With the recent talk about the UCD1+ list not conforming to the >> UCD specification, I am prompted to wonder whether anyone is >> working on a UCD verifier - or perhaps one already exists? > > Yes, try the validate tool at > http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/UCD/tools.htx Thanks. Other pointed me to that, too. The rules and meta-rules for UCD building imply that each UCD fills a niche in a larger semantic ecology. Each new UCD causes a potential challenge to all previously declared UCDs or lists or namespaces of same. The tool I was suggesting would not only test a single proposed UCD against the syntactical rules, but also test a list of same (e.g., representing a namespace) against the rules for building lists of UCDs. I suspect that the notion that two namespaces cannot contain identical UCDs (or more stringently, was it identical "words"?) will fall by the wayside, but if not, it would prove useful - almost mandatory - to have a tool to vet two lists against each other, or for instance, a newly proposed list against all previously registered namespaces. Which is to say that the choice of rules for assembling lists of UCDs is not a completely free design parameter. Rob Seaman NOAO