Usecases update - #69
Conversation
|
Nit-pick: product-type isn't draft any more, and advance-product-type hasn't More importantly, we should say that dataproduct_type should normally be matched with query expansion. Right now, the corresponding UDF isn't standardised, but on DaCHS-es you can already say or similar. I'd expect a very similar thing will make it into the UDF cat as ivo_vocmatch. |
The advanced data product vocabulary is a work in progress that should go forward . These products do not belong necessarily to the main branches of the product-type tree , and are not necessarily sampled on the same axes as spatial, spectral, time , etc . |
iannevans
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A number of updates tweaking formatting and other trivial changes. Tried to make some of the wording "more formal". I made significant suggestions for the "3 Proposals" in the Introductory text that folds in some of my previous feedback while keeping your discussion.
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>
thanks Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
Co-authored-by: Bruno Khélifi <khelifi@in2p3.fr>
Co-authored-by: Ian Nigel Evans <ievans@cfa.harvard.edu>
in the use cases appendix I have added parts of the remarks concerning how to deal with data product type vocabularies .
The science cases remain the same , only the strategy to write ADQL query is discussed .
This is an attempt to open the discussion in the DM working group for the next step.