Update UCD section relative to last discussion with Semantics WG#61
Conversation
Clarified the usage of Particle Data Group Identifier for particle detection and the electron case.
showing the result of recent discussions with Semantics WG
loumir
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added a few comments and recommended changes where I thought they made sense.
| 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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
Ok for me 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
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
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>
Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
bkhelifi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks a lot to all! OK for me
|
@iannevans: a very last short question about |
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
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. |
| \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. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
iannevans
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 ;-)
| 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. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
following the discussion with semantics on June 10th , we can keep this line to indicate the electron case is covered anyway.
as discussed in last semantics -Heig meeting in Strasbourg , June 10th
loumir
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
last commits include the changes decided in Strasbourg meeting on June 10th.
get vep files in update_semantics_part
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 .