[iaufwg] FITS Registry Proposal

[William Pence]

Mark,

I have always been thinking of this registry as primarily for what
you call the "pre-existing" conventions.  Of course it can also be adapted
for use for entirely new "Proposed" conventions, but at this point
I think the most important and most productive thing we can do
is to collect and document the dozens (and maybe even hundreds)
of useful FITS conventions that have been developed and used over the
past 25 years.  So instead of saying that an existing  convention would be
"proposed" for enclusion in the Registry, perhaps it would be
clearer to say the the convention would be "nominated" for
inclusion in the registry.

My feeling is that this repository should be reserved
for "important and significant" conventions, and not every little 
convention that has been adopted by every mission in the past 25 
years  (the HEASARC alone has 100s of instrument-specific conventions
for specific keyword and column names but I don't think most of them have
much potential for reuse by any other mission).  This is not intended
to be a huge FITS keyword data dictionary where every keyword that
anyone ever used is documented (although this would also be useful
if anyone has the time and energy to implement it). Instead, I see this 
as mainly for conventions that could potentially be reused for the same purpose
by other missions or projects.  Certainly the SDFITS convention
fits into this category.

So, the real issue here is how do we define what is meant by the
"important and significant" conventions that are worthy of being
put into the IAU-FWG Registry of Conventions.  The rules I proposed
were a first attempt at this definition.  Do you think that the way 
those rule are currently worded that conventions like SDFITS would
be excluded?   If so, can use suggest some alternate wording?

regards,
Bill

On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 12:57:44PM +1100, Mark Calabretta wrote:
> 
> On Tue 2006/03/21 17:26:56 CDT, William Pence wrote
> in a message to: IAU-FWG <iaufwg at nrao.edu>
> 
> Dear Bill,
> 
> >1.  Bob and Doug both suggested opening up the registry so that proposed 
> >conventions, or working drafts of conventions could be registered.  I think 
> >this is fine as long as there is a clear distinction between the 2 (e.g., by 
> >having separate web pages for the "proposed" and the "approved" 
> >conventions).  So when someone submits a convention for approval it would 
> >first be put on the "proposed" web page during the public comment period. 
> >Then if the IAU-FWG approves it, it would be moved to the "approved" web 
> >page.  Otherwise it would remain on the "Proposed" web page indefinitely, 
> >(unless the proposers want to withdraw it).
> 
> There seems to be a conflict here between "proposed" and pre-existing
> conventions.  I am thinking specifically of the SDFITS convention
> (http://www.cv.nrao.edu/fits/documents/drafts/dishfits/sdfits.ps,
> http://www.adass.org/adass/proceedings/adass99/P2-32/) which the ATNF
> currently uses (in slightly modified form) for Parkes and Mopra data
> and which consequently is used by other radio observatories that have
> adopted our software.
> 
> The SDFITS convention exists already and has been used to transport and
> archive a large mass of data from single dish radio telescopes including
> several major surveys (e.g. Parkes/Multibeam and Arecibo/ALFA).  In this
> sense it has already been "approved" by widespread usage; the main goal
> in registering such a convention should simply be in documenting it (and
> its variants).
> 
> In fact, SDFITS as originally described, would probably not pass muster
> if offered now as a new convention because its WCS keywords do not
> conform to the syntax prescribed for bintables in WCS Paper I - but
> SDFITS predates that and in any case its keyword usage is not illegal.
> 
> >2.  Doug felt that the proposed approval process is too strict and the 
> >requirements should be cut back to a minimum.  I agree that the requirements 
> >should be keep to a minimum and am open to specific suggestions for how to 
> >change the wording (at http://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/fits_registry.html)  I 
> >still think however that a convention must meet some minimum requirements 
> >before it can be given the IAU-FWG Seal of Approval.  Doug specifically 
> >mentioned the requirement of not duplicating other conventions, but the 
> >current wording  does not forbid this, and only says that conventions should 
> >not duplicate other conventions "without good justification".
> 
> This is fine for proposed conventions but for pre-existing conventions
> (some of which may already duplicate others) I suggest opening it right
> up and creating a wiki.
> 
> Cheers, Mark