Skip to content

Update UCD section relative to last discussion with Semantics WG#61

Merged
bkhelifi merged 29 commits into
ivoa:mainfrom
loumir:update_semantics_part
Jun 16, 2026
Merged

Update UCD section relative to last discussion with Semantics WG#61
bkhelifi merged 29 commits into
ivoa:mainfrom
loumir:update_semantics_part

Conversation

@loumir

@loumir loumir commented May 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I would like the results of the semantics WG discussions that happened to appear in this note. This was part of the work all along the year.
Therefore in the listed requirements for UCD we should use the terms that have been recently discussed and approved by the semantics group .
I have updated various parts of this section and included %comments to explain the changes .

loumir and others added 3 commits May 27, 2026 19:46

@loumir loumir left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please review the UCD changes, a few inconsistencies may still be hidden.
thanks

@loumir loumir left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thanks for your careful reading.
many places changed due to the UCD related elements .

The different roles between the column names , using the dedicated language of the specific domain , here high energy , and the UCD terms using a more general language to foster crosswalks between the various usage in other spectral domains , should be clear in the note.

@iannevans iannevans left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added a few comments and recommended changes where I thought they made sense.

Comment thread HighEnergyObsCoreExt.tex Outdated
Comment thread HighEnergyObsCoreExt.tex Outdated
Comment thread HighEnergyObsCoreExt.tex Outdated
Comment thread HighEnergyObsCoreExt.tex Outdated
Comment thread HighEnergyObsCoreExt.tex Outdated
Comment thread HighEnergyObsCoreExt.tex Outdated
Comment thread HighEnergyObsCoreExt.tex Outdated
Comment thread HighEnergyObsCoreExt.tex
P & {\em stat.error.positive\/} & Positive statistical error \cr
P & {\em stat.lowerlimit\/} & Lower limit \cr
P & {\em stat.upperlimit\/} & Upper limit \cr
% Mireille we cannot have these terms in the UCD tree ; that would imply importing all possible encoding of any kind

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I disagree about phys.particle.pdgid. phys.particle.pdgid is a UCD that identifies a Particle Group Identifier, for example a column in a FITS file that records the pdgid for each event. It's not the same as UCDs that encode all possible pdgids as part of the UCD name.

Comment thread HighEnergyObsCoreExt.tex Outdated
Comment thread HighEnergyObsCoreExt.tex Outdated
loumir and others added 5 commits May 28, 2026 15:33
Ok for me

Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
+1

Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
+1

Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
Updated UCD descriptions for event grade, type, and physical quantities in HighEnergyObsCoreExt.tex.

@loumir loumir left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I hope I filled the changes . I am not used to the GitHub on line editor , so what is taken into account for the PDF compilation is not clear to me.

@loumir loumir left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

test

loumir and others added 2 commits June 2, 2026 11:33
Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
@loumir loumir requested a review from iannevans June 2, 2026 09:38
bkhelifi and others added 10 commits June 2, 2026 12:09
Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>

@bkhelifi bkhelifi left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks a lot to all! OK for me

@bkhelifi

bkhelifi commented Jun 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@iannevans: a very last short question about proposal_id (section 3.11). When we have a list of IDs, should we recommand to use # as separator? If you agree, you can make directly the change and do the merge!

@iannevans

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@iannevans: a very last short question about proposal_id (section 3.11). When we have a list of IDs, should we recommand to use # as separator? If you agree, you can make directly the change and do the merge!

We want to bring proposal_id into line with facility_name and instrument_name, which are the other two "provenance" attributes in ObsCore. They already support multiple values. For facility_name, the REC says "For combined observations stemming from multiple facilities the name may contain a list of comma separated strings, or the word "Many"; if the list is too long, as defined in the VODataservice specification." and instrument_name states "Multiple values are also allowed for complex observations as defined for facility name."

For proposal_id, could recommending adding the same sentence (i.e.,) "Multiple values are also allowed for complex observations as defined for facility name." but I'm not convinced it's necessary.

1 similar comment
@iannevans

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@iannevans: a very last short question about proposal_id (section 3.11). When we have a list of IDs, should we recommand to use # as separator? If you agree, you can make directly the change and do the merge!

We want to bring proposal_id into line with facility_name and instrument_name, which are the other two "provenance" attributes in ObsCore. They already support multiple values. For facility_name, the REC says "For combined observations stemming from multiple facilities the name may contain a list of comma separated strings, or the word "Many"; if the list is too long, as defined in the VODataservice specification." and instrument_name states "Multiple values are also allowed for complex observations as defined for facility name."

For proposal_id, could recommending adding the same sentence (i.e.,) "Multiple values are also allowed for complex observations as defined for facility name." but I'm not convinced it's necessary.

Comment thread HighEnergyObsCoreExt.tex Outdated
Comment thread HighEnergyObsCoreExt.tex Outdated
Comment thread HighEnergyObsCoreExt.tex Outdated
\paragraph{Event Type}

For \gls{VHE} (and GeV) gamma-ray data, there is the notion of event type (see \S~\ref{sec:evttype}) that can be mandatory for some data releases. We propose to add a new UCD {\em instr.event.type\/} that identifies these data values.
For \gls{VHE} (and GeV) gamma-ray data, there is the notion of event type (see \S~\ref{sec:evttype}) that can be mandatory for some data releases. We propose to use a combined UCD {\em meta.code.class;instr.detection\/} to tag the proposed {\bf event\_type} parameter.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would "to tag event type" make more sense? Similar comment to "event_grade": assuming all instruments/facilities use "event_type" as a column name is too optimistic.

Comment thread HighEnergyObsCoreExt.tex Outdated

@iannevans iannevans left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I made a few suggestions but this is definitely converging. There's a question for Bruno hidden in my comment on the description of phys.pulse ;-)

Comment thread HighEnergyObsCoreExt.tex
That could be solved by marking {\em phys.electron\/} (and {\em phys.electron.degen\/}) as obsolete or not recommended, and adding the term {\em phys.particle.electron\/} to the UCD list.
However, as many data sets in the IVOA projects are already tagged with {\em phys.electron\/} this may require maintenance costs that should be evaluated .
It will be up to the IVOA to evaluate the benefice/cost ratio of such a change.
%The UCD term {\em phys.electron\/} is available anyway and can be used to tag an event related to electron particles.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

following the discussion with semantics on June 10th , we can keep this line to indicate the electron case is covered anyway.

@loumir loumir left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

last commits include the changes decided in Strasbourg meeting on June 10th.

@bkhelifi bkhelifi merged commit 9d79952 into ivoa:main Jun 16, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants