Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make coverage optional #8

Open
jd-au opened this issue Apr 17, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

Make coverage optional #8

jd-au opened this issue Apr 17, 2023 · 4 comments

Comments

@jd-au
Copy link
Contributor

jd-au commented Apr 17, 2023

SSA 1.1 sec 4.2.5.10 states MANdatory coverage information (Char.SpatialAxis.Coverage.Location.Value + 2 others),
but they are missing from example in Appendix A
. Appendix A is output from an SVO service; that service now fixed to contain (blank) missing columns

Theoretical services cannot provide coverage information so these columns should be made optional to support theoretical services.

Reported by @mbtaylor in the OPS Progress discussion https://wiki.ivoa.net/internal/IVOA/InterOpOct2022Ops/ops-progress.pdf in the https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/InterOpOct2022Ops session.

@jd-au
Copy link
Contributor Author

jd-au commented Apr 17, 2023

I've updated §4.2.5.10 to mark the previously mandatory fields as recommended and added the following text:

This component is optional to support theoretical services which do not have coverage information. However, where coverage information is available, such as in observational services, the columns Char.SpatialAxis.Coverage.Location.Value, Char.SpatialAxis.Coverage.Bounds.Extent, Char.TimeAxis.Coverage.Location.Value, Char.SpectralAxis.Coverage.Location.Value, and Char.SpectralAxis.Coverage.Bounds.Extent should be provided.

jd-au added a commit to jd-au/SSA that referenced this issue Apr 17, 2023
@jd-au
Copy link
Contributor Author

jd-au commented Dec 4, 2023

I've created a draft erratum at https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/SSA-1_1-Err-4

@mbtaylor
Copy link
Member

mbtaylor commented Dec 5, 2023

The Erratum looks good to me.

@acraugh
Copy link

acraugh commented May 19, 2024

As noted in the TCG meeting (19 May 2024), I would suggest inverting the paragraph so that the 90% case where coverage should be supplied is addressed first, and the exceptions where it is reasonably omitted come second. The change itself seems like a reasonable.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants