From hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE Fri Oct 7 04:48:39 2005 From: hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE (Frederic V. "Rick" Hessman) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 13:48:39 +0200 Subject: UCDs and Ontology Workshop In-Reply-To: <20050928170502.cr5855mfvtwk004o@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <20050928170502.cr5855mfvtwk004o@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <10BB23A9-4F20-49E4-8B11-14C4B7821A7B@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> Dear Andrea, I noticed that the CDS is hosting an ontology workshop, but there are no details on the internet. Is this sufficiently related to our discussion of UCDs that I should be interested in attending (since I wanted to drop by anyway sometime), or is this a closed and/or technical workshop for pundits? Rick From andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it Tue Oct 18 08:52:25 2005 From: andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it (Andrea Preite Martinez) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:52:25 +0200 Subject: IVOA Note on UCD maintenance Message-ID: <20051018175225.oye1p5on6kq8s84s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Dear member, at the recent InterOp meeting in Madrid I got the action to prepare a document desribing in detail the procedure to follow in order to maintain the standard list of UCD words. Together with Sebastien we wrote a draft document that I uploaded in the IVOA document area as a Note: "Maintenance of the list of UCD words. Ver.1.0" ( http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/ ... I still don't have the link to the note) Before sending it to the TCC I'd appreciate comments on the text !! Regards 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 anai_gomez at mat.ucm.es Tue Oct 18 10:53:51 2005 From: anai_gomez at mat.ucm.es (Ana Ines Gomez de Castro) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 19:53:51 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IVOA Note on UCD maintenance In-Reply-To: <20051018175225.oye1p5on6kq8s84s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: Dear Andrea, I've read the document and have some questions (maybe because I didn't attend the InterOp meeting). Here they are! 1. Why do you need two bodies "the scientific board" and the "semantics WG" to approve a new UCD?. Do you envission the SciBoard a "technical body" and the "Semantics WG" a "political-coordinating body"? >From our previous experience, I think that to accept a new UCD we require: - To test that the proposed new UCD cannot be made as a combination of the already existing. - To check that it is scientifically meaningful Is the SciBoard going to be responsible of both duties? 2. I assume that the rigidity in the updating of the UCD list (the list is updated during the InterOp meetings) is caused by the fact that once a new UCD is accepted the data providers have to include it in their "protocols", am I right? 3. Concerning the web based form... don't you think that it would be good to have a Comments field where the "history" of the UCD approval/disapproval is recorded?. It is feasible that a scientist, after receiving the notification of "rejection" answers to the SciBoard providing new reasons for the inclusion of the UCD word, eventually some of these reasons maybe relevant and the SciBoard may reconsider the rejection. I have not the slighlest idea about the degree of activity we might expect from the Community BUT it maybe a good policy to keep all the "rejected UCDs" in data base so, any time someone wish to propose a new UCD, the data base can be cross-checked so some time can be saved to the Chair of the SciBoard. Maybe this list could be accessible to the Community. 4. I do not understand well why on the on hand, it may be necessary to insert rapidly a new UCD (with the "temporary namespace "ivoa:"") and at the same time accept that the list of UCD's is updated in time-scales of InterOp meetings. Hope it helps!. Please, do not waste time answering the questions that have been already discussed at the InterOp meetings, just let me know. Cheers, Ana Prof. Ana I. Gomez de Castro Instituto de Astronomia y Geodesia (CSIC-UCM) Fac. de CC Matematicas Universidad Complutense de Madrid 28040 Madrid, Spain Ph. 34-913944578 (office) 34-659783338 (mobile) Email: aig at mat.ucm.es On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: > Dear member, > > at the recent InterOp meeting in Madrid I got the action to prepare a > document desribing in detail the procedure to follow in order to maintain > the standard list of UCD words. > > Together with Sebastien we wrote a draft document that I uploaded in the > IVOA document area as a Note: "Maintenance of the list of UCD words. > Ver.1.0" > ( http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/ ... I still don't have the link to > the note) > > Before sending it to the TCC I'd appreciate comments on the text !! > > Regards > > 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 > ============================================================================== > > -- Prof. Ana I. Gomez de Castro Instituto de Astronomia y Geodesia (CSIC-UCM) Fac. de CC Matematicas Universidad Complutense de Madrid 28040 Madrid, Spain Ph. 34-913944578 (office) 34-659783338 (mobile) Email: aig at mat.ucm.es From ndelmott at eso.org Tue Oct 18 23:50:17 2005 From: ndelmott at eso.org (Nausicaa Delmotte) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:50:17 +0200 Subject: IVOA Note on UCD maintenance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4355ECA9.1010805@eso.org> Dear all, Ana Ines Gomez de Castro wrote: > 3. Concerning the web based form... don't you think that it would be > good to have a Comments field where the "history" of the UCD > approval/disapproval is recorded?. It is feasible that a scientist, > after receiving the notification of "rejection" answers to the SciBoard > providing new reasons for the inclusion of the UCD word, eventually some > of these reasons maybe relevant and the SciBoard may reconsider the > rejection. > > I have not the slighlest idea about the degree of activity we might > expect from the Community BUT it maybe a good policy to keep all the > "rejected UCDs" in data base so, any time someone wish to propose a new > UCD, the data base can be cross-checked so some time can be saved to > the Chair of the SciBoard. Maybe this list could be accessible to the > Community. Yes, keeping track of the rejected UCD words in a database/file/... would be indeed very nice for future reference. Else, or in addition, maybe we could add a 'status flag' field to the form, so that we could 'sort by' status (rejected, temporary, accepted) and date. Cheers Nausicaa From andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it Wed Oct 19 02:37:55 2005 From: andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it (Andrea Preite Martinez) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:37:55 +0200 Subject: IVOA Note on UCD maintenance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051019113755.pyduajhv0ee1c8sw@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Ana, let me use your comments to clarify some of the issues (especially for those not present at the last InterOp meeting): Quoting Ana Ines Gomez de Castro : > > 1. Why do you need two bodies "the scientific board" and the "semantics > WG" to approve a new UCD?. Do you envission the SciBoard a "technical > body" and the "Semantics WG" a "political-coordinating body"? > Up to now the WG "UCDs" was taking care only of UCDs. At the InterOp meeting the mission (and consequently the name) of the WG has been broadened to cover: - UCDs: Maintenance of the list of UCD words; - Semantics: definition of standard vocabulary(ies) in the fields covered by IVOA activities; - Ontologies: explore what, how, why. The Sci-Board and the WG are not two separate bodies/entities: the Sci-Board is a group working within the WG to fulfill one of the missions of the WG. The final responsibility towards the IVOA Exec and the community at large resides in the WG (the Board has been appointed by the WG, not by the Exec). > From our previous experience, I think that to accept a new UCD we require: > - To test that the proposed new UCD cannot be made as a combination of the > already existing. > - To check that it is scientifically meaningful > Is the SciBoard going to be responsible of both duties? > Right so. I'd add that the proposed modification should be considered non only meaningful, but also used/useful. The list of UCDs is not a data model. > 2. I assume that the rigidity in the updating of the UCD list (the > list is updated during the InterOp meetings) is caused by the fact > that once a new UCD is accepted the data providers have to include it > in their "protocols", am I right? > In short, yes. You probably noticed that the procedure is rather "informal" and "asynchronous" at the beginning (RFM, discussion in the Board) and it becomes more "formal" in its second part (the actual update of the list). This is because in the IVOA there is only one way to establish (or re-establish, as in this case) what is an "IVOA standard" and how. > 3. Concerning the web based form... don't you think that it would be > good to have a Comments field where the "history" of the UCD > approval/disapproval is recorded?. It is feasible that a scientist, > after receiving the notification of "rejection" answers to the SciBoard > providing new reasons for the inclusion of the UCD word, eventually some > of these reasons maybe relevant and the SciBoard may reconsider the > rejection. > First of all, let me say that the actual page at http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/UCD/cgi-bin/comment/ucdComments is only a test page, still to be upgraded to fulfil the requested needs. But the page is already an interface to a database of ALL requests (showing the "history", as you say). The RFM form is accessible from this page. As for the case of "new reasons" for a resubmission, well why not resubmitting! You won't lose the thread (already activated by user, by date, by ucd). All this answers also your next comment: > I have not the slighlest idea about the degree of activity we might > expect from the Community BUT it maybe a good policy to keep all the > "rejected UCDs" in data base so, any time someone wish to propose a new > UCD, the data base can be cross-checked so some time can be saved to > the Chair of the SciBoard. Maybe this list could be accessible to the > Community. > > 4. I do not understand well why on the on hand, it may be necessary to > insert rapidly a new UCD (with the "temporary namespace "ivoa:"") and > at the same time accept that the list of UCD's is updated in time-scales > of InterOp meetings. > This is just because the time-scale of the process of approving an IVOA Recommendation starting from the status of WD can take a few months (>2)! > Hope it helps!. Yes, indeed! 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 sciops.esa.int Wed Oct 19 02:48:22 2005 From: Pedro.Osuna at sciops.esa.int (Pedro Osuna) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:48:22 +0200 Subject: IVOA Note on UCD maintenance In-Reply-To: <20051018175225.oye1p5on6kq8s84s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <20051018175225.oye1p5on6kq8s84s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <1129715301.23228.1769.camel@isol03.vilspa.esa.int> Dear Andrea, I think the procedure is quite thorough and reflects all the steps we suggested in the initial document on UCD. I am worried though about allowing the identifier "ivoa:" as namespace for those UCDs already approved but temporarily out of the UCD standard (as this one will only be updated once or twice a year). What this might end up is with loads of systems using not-yet-standard UCDs, different from one proposal to the other, and all of them starting with the same identifier "ivoa:". Even worse, probably the data provider will write the "ivoa:" ucd, and probably won't change it to the "real" one when the UCD is standardised. A possible solution for this problem would be to allow for specific namespaces for specific needs (let's say, like a "solar:" namespace for solar physics specific UCDs) but this again seems to go in the debate on whether this should be relegated to data models or not, which I think is not worth to retake now. Just my two cents. Cheers, P. On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 17:52, Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: > Dear member, > > at the recent InterOp meeting in Madrid I got the action to prepare a > document desribing in detail the procedure to follow in order to maintain > the standard list of UCD words. > > Together with Sebastien we wrote a draft document that I uploaded in the > IVOA document area as a Note: "Maintenance of the list of UCD words. > Ver.1.0" > ( http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/ ... I still don't have the link to > the note) > > Before sending it to the TCC I'd appreciate comments on the text !! > > Regards > > 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 > ============================================================================== -- Pedro Osuna Alcalaya ESA Science Archives System Engineer Science Archive Team European Space Astronomy Centre (ESAC/ESA) e-mail: Pedro.Osuna at esa.int Tel + 34 91 8131314 --------------------------------- European Space Astronomy Centre European Space Agency P.O. Box 50727 E-28080 Villafranca del Castillo MADRID - SPAIN From rgm at roe.ac.uk Wed Oct 19 03:10:12 2005 From: rgm at roe.ac.uk (Bob Mann) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:10:12 +0100 (BST) Subject: IVOA Note on UCD maintenance In-Reply-To: <20051018175225.oye1p5on6kq8s84s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <20051018175225.oye1p5on6kq8s84s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: Hi folks, My only comment on this is to ask whether it is better to have each RFM sent out to the Scientific Board as soon as it is submitted or whether they should be collected over a period (three months?) and have the Scientific Board then debate those RFMs which have accumulated during that period. My question is really based on own experience and working habits. If I see an email arriving about a single proposed UCD amendment I'm probably unlikely to take time to consider it if I'm busy, whereas, if I know I have a few hours' work to do every quarter I'm more likely to set aside a period of time for doing that work properly. What do other people think? cheers Bob From seaman at noao.edu Wed Oct 19 07:03:21 2005 From: seaman at noao.edu (Rob Seaman) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:03:21 -0700 Subject: IVOA Note on UCD maintenance In-Reply-To: <1129715301.23228.1769.camel@isol03.vilspa.esa.int> References: <20051018175225.oye1p5on6kq8s84s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> <1129715301.23228.1769.camel@isol03.vilspa.esa.int> Message-ID: <14DE598C-6B6D-41EB-BDB9-CCAE567AE8B9@noao.edu> Pedro Osuna wrote: > I am worried though about allowing the identifier "ivoa:" as namespace > for those UCDs already approved but temporarily out of the UCD > standard > (as this one will only be updated once or twice a year). Section 2 of the v1.1 UCD standard seems to state that "ivoa;" is equivalent to the default namespace. It is unclear what distinction is being drawn here between "approved" and "not yet standard". On the other hand, I am very heartened that the UCD committee(s) have reached the point of recognizing that at least some alternative namespaces are necessary. > A possible solution for this problem would be to allow for specific > namespaces for specific needs (let's say, like a "solar:" namespace > for > solar physics specific UCDs) The standard already does: "The use of namespaces, indicated by the presence of a colon in the word, is possible..." This is also discussed in section 2, which goes on to attempt to dissuade their use: "but should be avoided as far as possible." I believe this to be a vain hope. The way to control the looming complexity of UCDs is precisely to spread the responsibility (and pain) around. This reminds me of the "image" extension specification for FITS, which tries to convince users that it is both bad - and worse, unnecessary - to create data-less primary header data units. What did the community immediately do with image extensions? I'm tempted to leave that as a rhetorical question - but what we did was to discover an excellent usage for subclassing metadata between the primary headers and the extension headers and for stuffing all the data into the extensions. UCD namespaces are inevitable. Bob Mann wrote: > My only comment on this is to ask whether it is better to have > each RFM sent out to the Scientific Board as soon as it is submitted > or whether they should be collected over a period (three months?) By all means, although I might suggest a monthly cadence. There should also be a mechanism for expedited discussions for UCDs which are needed "yesterday". Note, however, that the pressure for immediate decision-making would also be relieved by the availability of namespaces. Rob Seaman National Optical Astronomy Observatory From hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE Fri Oct 7 04:48:39 2005 From: hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE (Frederic V. "Rick" Hessman) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 13:48:39 +0200 Subject: UCDs and Ontology Workshop In-Reply-To: <20050928170502.cr5855mfvtwk004o@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <20050928170502.cr5855mfvtwk004o@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <10BB23A9-4F20-49E4-8B11-14C4B7821A7B@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> Dear Andrea, I noticed that the CDS is hosting an ontology workshop, but there are no details on the internet. Is this sufficiently related to our discussion of UCDs that I should be interested in attending (since I wanted to drop by anyway sometime), or is this a closed and/or technical workshop for pundits? Rick From andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it Tue Oct 18 08:52:25 2005 From: andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it (Andrea Preite Martinez) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:52:25 +0200 Subject: IVOA Note on UCD maintenance Message-ID: <20051018175225.oye1p5on6kq8s84s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Dear member, at the recent InterOp meeting in Madrid I got the action to prepare a document desribing in detail the procedure to follow in order to maintain the standard list of UCD words. Together with Sebastien we wrote a draft document that I uploaded in the IVOA document area as a Note: "Maintenance of the list of UCD words. Ver.1.0" ( http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/ ... I still don't have the link to the note) Before sending it to the TCC I'd appreciate comments on the text !! Regards 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 anai_gomez at mat.ucm.es Tue Oct 18 10:53:51 2005 From: anai_gomez at mat.ucm.es (Ana Ines Gomez de Castro) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 19:53:51 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IVOA Note on UCD maintenance In-Reply-To: <20051018175225.oye1p5on6kq8s84s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: Dear Andrea, I've read the document and have some questions (maybe because I didn't attend the InterOp meeting). Here they are! 1. Why do you need two bodies "the scientific board" and the "semantics WG" to approve a new UCD?. Do you envission the SciBoard a "technical body" and the "Semantics WG" a "political-coordinating body"? >From our previous experience, I think that to accept a new UCD we require: - To test that the proposed new UCD cannot be made as a combination of the already existing. - To check that it is scientifically meaningful Is the SciBoard going to be responsible of both duties? 2. I assume that the rigidity in the updating of the UCD list (the list is updated during the InterOp meetings) is caused by the fact that once a new UCD is accepted the data providers have to include it in their "protocols", am I right? 3. Concerning the web based form... don't you think that it would be good to have a Comments field where the "history" of the UCD approval/disapproval is recorded?. It is feasible that a scientist, after receiving the notification of "rejection" answers to the SciBoard providing new reasons for the inclusion of the UCD word, eventually some of these reasons maybe relevant and the SciBoard may reconsider the rejection. I have not the slighlest idea about the degree of activity we might expect from the Community BUT it maybe a good policy to keep all the "rejected UCDs" in data base so, any time someone wish to propose a new UCD, the data base can be cross-checked so some time can be saved to the Chair of the SciBoard. Maybe this list could be accessible to the Community. 4. I do not understand well why on the on hand, it may be necessary to insert rapidly a new UCD (with the "temporary namespace "ivoa:"") and at the same time accept that the list of UCD's is updated in time-scales of InterOp meetings. Hope it helps!. Please, do not waste time answering the questions that have been already discussed at the InterOp meetings, just let me know. Cheers, Ana Prof. Ana I. Gomez de Castro Instituto de Astronomia y Geodesia (CSIC-UCM) Fac. de CC Matematicas Universidad Complutense de Madrid 28040 Madrid, Spain Ph. 34-913944578 (office) 34-659783338 (mobile) Email: aig at mat.ucm.es On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: > Dear member, > > at the recent InterOp meeting in Madrid I got the action to prepare a > document desribing in detail the procedure to follow in order to maintain > the standard list of UCD words. > > Together with Sebastien we wrote a draft document that I uploaded in the > IVOA document area as a Note: "Maintenance of the list of UCD words. > Ver.1.0" > ( http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/ ... I still don't have the link to > the note) > > Before sending it to the TCC I'd appreciate comments on the text !! > > Regards > > 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 > ============================================================================== > > -- Prof. Ana I. Gomez de Castro Instituto de Astronomia y Geodesia (CSIC-UCM) Fac. de CC Matematicas Universidad Complutense de Madrid 28040 Madrid, Spain Ph. 34-913944578 (office) 34-659783338 (mobile) Email: aig at mat.ucm.es From ndelmott at eso.org Tue Oct 18 23:50:17 2005 From: ndelmott at eso.org (Nausicaa Delmotte) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:50:17 +0200 Subject: IVOA Note on UCD maintenance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4355ECA9.1010805@eso.org> Dear all, Ana Ines Gomez de Castro wrote: > 3. Concerning the web based form... don't you think that it would be > good to have a Comments field where the "history" of the UCD > approval/disapproval is recorded?. It is feasible that a scientist, > after receiving the notification of "rejection" answers to the SciBoard > providing new reasons for the inclusion of the UCD word, eventually some > of these reasons maybe relevant and the SciBoard may reconsider the > rejection. > > I have not the slighlest idea about the degree of activity we might > expect from the Community BUT it maybe a good policy to keep all the > "rejected UCDs" in data base so, any time someone wish to propose a new > UCD, the data base can be cross-checked so some time can be saved to > the Chair of the SciBoard. Maybe this list could be accessible to the > Community. Yes, keeping track of the rejected UCD words in a database/file/... would be indeed very nice for future reference. Else, or in addition, maybe we could add a 'status flag' field to the form, so that we could 'sort by' status (rejected, temporary, accepted) and date. Cheers Nausicaa From andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it Wed Oct 19 02:37:55 2005 From: andrea.preitemartinez at rm.iasf.cnr.it (Andrea Preite Martinez) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:37:55 +0200 Subject: IVOA Note on UCD maintenance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051019113755.pyduajhv0ee1c8sw@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Ana, let me use your comments to clarify some of the issues (especially for those not present at the last InterOp meeting): Quoting Ana Ines Gomez de Castro : > > 1. Why do you need two bodies "the scientific board" and the "semantics > WG" to approve a new UCD?. Do you envission the SciBoard a "technical > body" and the "Semantics WG" a "political-coordinating body"? > Up to now the WG "UCDs" was taking care only of UCDs. At the InterOp meeting the mission (and consequently the name) of the WG has been broadened to cover: - UCDs: Maintenance of the list of UCD words; - Semantics: definition of standard vocabulary(ies) in the fields covered by IVOA activities; - Ontologies: explore what, how, why. The Sci-Board and the WG are not two separate bodies/entities: the Sci-Board is a group working within the WG to fulfill one of the missions of the WG. The final responsibility towards the IVOA Exec and the community at large resides in the WG (the Board has been appointed by the WG, not by the Exec). > From our previous experience, I think that to accept a new UCD we require: > - To test that the proposed new UCD cannot be made as a combination of the > already existing. > - To check that it is scientifically meaningful > Is the SciBoard going to be responsible of both duties? > Right so. I'd add that the proposed modification should be considered non only meaningful, but also used/useful. The list of UCDs is not a data model. > 2. I assume that the rigidity in the updating of the UCD list (the > list is updated during the InterOp meetings) is caused by the fact > that once a new UCD is accepted the data providers have to include it > in their "protocols", am I right? > In short, yes. You probably noticed that the procedure is rather "informal" and "asynchronous" at the beginning (RFM, discussion in the Board) and it becomes more "formal" in its second part (the actual update of the list). This is because in the IVOA there is only one way to establish (or re-establish, as in this case) what is an "IVOA standard" and how. > 3. Concerning the web based form... don't you think that it would be > good to have a Comments field where the "history" of the UCD > approval/disapproval is recorded?. It is feasible that a scientist, > after receiving the notification of "rejection" answers to the SciBoard > providing new reasons for the inclusion of the UCD word, eventually some > of these reasons maybe relevant and the SciBoard may reconsider the > rejection. > First of all, let me say that the actual page at http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/UCD/cgi-bin/comment/ucdComments is only a test page, still to be upgraded to fulfil the requested needs. But the page is already an interface to a database of ALL requests (showing the "history", as you say). The RFM form is accessible from this page. As for the case of "new reasons" for a resubmission, well why not resubmitting! You won't lose the thread (already activated by user, by date, by ucd). All this answers also your next comment: > I have not the slighlest idea about the degree of activity we might > expect from the Community BUT it maybe a good policy to keep all the > "rejected UCDs" in data base so, any time someone wish to propose a new > UCD, the data base can be cross-checked so some time can be saved to > the Chair of the SciBoard. Maybe this list could be accessible to the > Community. > > 4. I do not understand well why on the on hand, it may be necessary to > insert rapidly a new UCD (with the "temporary namespace "ivoa:"") and > at the same time accept that the list of UCD's is updated in time-scales > of InterOp meetings. > This is just because the time-scale of the process of approving an IVOA Recommendation starting from the status of WD can take a few months (>2)! > Hope it helps!. Yes, indeed! 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 sciops.esa.int Wed Oct 19 02:48:22 2005 From: Pedro.Osuna at sciops.esa.int (Pedro Osuna) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:48:22 +0200 Subject: IVOA Note on UCD maintenance In-Reply-To: <20051018175225.oye1p5on6kq8s84s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <20051018175225.oye1p5on6kq8s84s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <1129715301.23228.1769.camel@isol03.vilspa.esa.int> Dear Andrea, I think the procedure is quite thorough and reflects all the steps we suggested in the initial document on UCD. I am worried though about allowing the identifier "ivoa:" as namespace for those UCDs already approved but temporarily out of the UCD standard (as this one will only be updated once or twice a year). What this might end up is with loads of systems using not-yet-standard UCDs, different from one proposal to the other, and all of them starting with the same identifier "ivoa:". Even worse, probably the data provider will write the "ivoa:" ucd, and probably won't change it to the "real" one when the UCD is standardised. A possible solution for this problem would be to allow for specific namespaces for specific needs (let's say, like a "solar:" namespace for solar physics specific UCDs) but this again seems to go in the debate on whether this should be relegated to data models or not, which I think is not worth to retake now. Just my two cents. Cheers, P. On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 17:52, Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: > Dear member, > > at the recent InterOp meeting in Madrid I got the action to prepare a > document desribing in detail the procedure to follow in order to maintain > the standard list of UCD words. > > Together with Sebastien we wrote a draft document that I uploaded in the > IVOA document area as a Note: "Maintenance of the list of UCD words. > Ver.1.0" > ( http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/ ... I still don't have the link to > the note) > > Before sending it to the TCC I'd appreciate comments on the text !! > > Regards > > 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 > ============================================================================== -- Pedro Osuna Alcalaya ESA Science Archives System Engineer Science Archive Team European Space Astronomy Centre (ESAC/ESA) e-mail: Pedro.Osuna at esa.int Tel + 34 91 8131314 --------------------------------- European Space Astronomy Centre European Space Agency P.O. Box 50727 E-28080 Villafranca del Castillo MADRID - SPAIN From rgm at roe.ac.uk Wed Oct 19 03:10:12 2005 From: rgm at roe.ac.uk (Bob Mann) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:10:12 +0100 (BST) Subject: IVOA Note on UCD maintenance In-Reply-To: <20051018175225.oye1p5on6kq8s84s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <20051018175225.oye1p5on6kq8s84s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: Hi folks, My only comment on this is to ask whether it is better to have each RFM sent out to the Scientific Board as soon as it is submitted or whether they should be collected over a period (three months?) and have the Scientific Board then debate those RFMs which have accumulated during that period. My question is really based on own experience and working habits. If I see an email arriving about a single proposed UCD amendment I'm probably unlikely to take time to consider it if I'm busy, whereas, if I know I have a few hours' work to do every quarter I'm more likely to set aside a period of time for doing that work properly. What do other people think? cheers Bob From seaman at noao.edu Wed Oct 19 07:03:21 2005 From: seaman at noao.edu (Rob Seaman) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:03:21 -0700 Subject: IVOA Note on UCD maintenance In-Reply-To: <1129715301.23228.1769.camel@isol03.vilspa.esa.int> References: <20051018175225.oye1p5on6kq8s84s@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> <1129715301.23228.1769.camel@isol03.vilspa.esa.int> Message-ID: <14DE598C-6B6D-41EB-BDB9-CCAE567AE8B9@noao.edu> Pedro Osuna wrote: > I am worried though about allowing the identifier "ivoa:" as namespace > for those UCDs already approved but temporarily out of the UCD > standard > (as this one will only be updated once or twice a year). Section 2 of the v1.1 UCD standard seems to state that "ivoa;" is equivalent to the default namespace. It is unclear what distinction is being drawn here between "approved" and "not yet standard". On the other hand, I am very heartened that the UCD committee(s) have reached the point of recognizing that at least some alternative namespaces are necessary. > A possible solution for this problem would be to allow for specific > namespaces for specific needs (let's say, like a "solar:" namespace > for > solar physics specific UCDs) The standard already does: "The use of namespaces, indicated by the presence of a colon in the word, is possible..." This is also discussed in section 2, which goes on to attempt to dissuade their use: "but should be avoided as far as possible." I believe this to be a vain hope. The way to control the looming complexity of UCDs is precisely to spread the responsibility (and pain) around. This reminds me of the "image" extension specification for FITS, which tries to convince users that it is both bad - and worse, unnecessary - to create data-less primary header data units. What did the community immediately do with image extensions? I'm tempted to leave that as a rhetorical question - but what we did was to discover an excellent usage for subclassing metadata between the primary headers and the extension headers and for stuffing all the data into the extensions. UCD namespaces are inevitable. Bob Mann wrote: > My only comment on this is to ask whether it is better to have > each RFM sent out to the Scientific Board as soon as it is submitted > or whether they should be collected over a period (three months?) By all means, although I might suggest a monthly cadence. There should also be a mechanism for expedited discussions for UCDs which are needed "yesterday". Note, however, that the pressure for immediate decision-making would also be relieved by the availability of namespaces. Rob Seaman National Optical Astronomy Observatory