Wrapping up ADQL
Pedro.Osuna at sciops.esa.int
Tue Jun 3 08:59:14 PDT 2008
I have been quiet reading the different issues concerning our ADQL
doc, nearly finished.
I would like to remind you that we should be in the period of
answering the RFC comments, rather than introducing ourselves new
functionalities (that ought to have been discussed before, within the
TEG) or significative changes to the document.
Nevertheless, some small or agreed changes (during the Trieste
meeting) are necessary, and therefore the following is my proposal to
close the ADQL periple towards PR:
1.- We leave ELLIPSE out of this version of the document, and start
thinking on whether it is well defined or not to eventually include it
in a future version.
The fact that different well experienced people have different views
on this very issue makes me skeptic on its easiness, and rather looks
to me like the inclusion of the ELLIPSE function needs further
thinking. The fact that we are issuing this version of the ADQL as PR
does not mean that the ADQL will be frozen forever. We have agreed
that this document will evolve in the future, and things might be
added to it, but they will have to be discussed properly within the
team and well researched and agreed.
2.- We adopt DEGREES (and square degrees) as units. This is a non-
issue in my understanding, as conversions among them are trivial. It
is just a matter of decision and agreement, and I believe we can all
live with degrees, and will take the necessary steps to convert to
whichever units we'd have our DB data in.
3.- We include BOX as per the latest inputs from Jeff. They have been
agreed by Pat followed by Alex, so I give the latest definition as valid
4.- I have not understood the change of system_defined_function to
geometry_function. In my understanding system_defined_function is
more general than geometry_function and could allocate other types of
system defined functions to be included in the future if necessary
that not necessarily would have to be geometry functions.
Therefore, unless there is a good reason against it, I call for not
modifying the BNF on anything that has not been agreed, and leave it
in this case as system_defined_function. This is not a criticism to
Jeff's work, which is excellent and incredibly helpful for the ADQL
doc, but just a reminder that we are only making changes in response
to the RFC, and that we should refrain from introducing changes,
despite how small, that could create more questions that the answers
they provide with. As soon as the changes that reflect the comments
from the RFC are included in the document (together with the
agreements from the Trieste meeting), the document shall be ready for
PR; thus, no changes other than the agreed ones should be put in.
So, to summarise, I call for your agreement or otherwise on the
- Remove ELLIPSe for this version
- Adopt DEGREES as units
- Include BOX as per agreement
- leave system_defined_function
- write agreed changes in the doc
- initiate auxiliary document with examples (not needed for the PR) --
> Yuji and Benjamin --> discoped from this discussion
I will send _tomorrow_ a mail to the community saying that the RFC
period is closed, then Inaki will edit the doc to include all the
final issues, and once it is ready we'll distribute it to the TEG, and
-if accepted- will pass it to the IVOA TCG for final examination.
That's all. Please send me you agreement (hopefully) or otherwise,
with comments if any.
Pedro Osuna Alcalaya
European Space Agency (ESA)
European Space Astronomy Centre (ESAC)
Science Operations Department (SCI-O)
Science Archives and Computer Support Engineering Unit (SCI-OE)
e-mail: Pedro.Osuna at esa.int
Tel + 34 91 813 13 14 Fax: +34 91 813 11 72
European Space Astronomy Centre (ESAC)
P.O. Box 78
E-28691 Villanueva de la Cañada
MADRID - SPAIN
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The
unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content
is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please delete it from your system and notify
the sender. E-mails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed. ESA shall not be liable
for any e-mail if modified.
More information about the voql-teg