RE: Common and uncommon goals and software

[<jbush@pucp.edu.pe>]

what about adding the time ?????

also exposure time, or does this belong elsewhere ???

jamie

On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Michael Gutzwiller wrote:

> I agree with Chris that the best we can probably hope for is a standard for
> data interchange.  I know that the formats output by Star gave Chris fits
> (pun not originally intended but it fits) since the format was too flexible.
> I think we can come up with a standard for FITS tables for star lists.
> 
> The FITS header would be a copy from the raw file with the exception of the
> image data itself.
> 
> The star list itself would include the following fields:
> 
> * x
> * y
> * ra
> * dec
> * mag
> * mag error
> * fwhmx
> * fwhmy
> * julian date
> 
> 
> Comments?
> 
> 
> Mike G.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-tass@listserv.wwa.com [mailto:owner-tass@listserv.wwa.com]On
> Behalf Of Tom Droege
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 11:43 PM
> To: Albertson, Chris; tass@listserv.wwa.com
> Subject: RE: Common and uncommon goals and software
> 
> 
> Does anyone object to agreeing that we will use ASCII FITS tables to
> exchange data?
> 
> If there are no objections, I will make it a "rule".  Ah! but we don't have
> rules in tass.
> 
>   Since we don't have rules, the only way to do this is for some of us to
> start exchanging data in FITS tables.  I don't at the moment know what that
> looks like, but it is probably not all that inefficient.
> 
> So the only way in tass that standards get set is by inertia.  Some of us
> start using some relatively good technique.   After a while it becomes too
> bothersome to switch to some only slightly better new method.  That is how
> we get a standard.  But it is always possible to break a "rule" if it
> really is better for all.
> 
> At least this is my scheme as to how to do it.
> 
> Tom Droege
> 
> At 05:53 PM 11/3/00 -0800, you wrote:
> 
> >Your description below outlines my ideal perfect world solution.
> >However getting everyone to agree that one thing, no matter what it
> >is, is best will be hard.  It may happen who knows, I just
> >doubt it.
> >
> >What I think we _REALLY_ have to do is standardize a set of data
> >interchange standards.  I have one now: FITS.  We have agreed
> >on a FITS image standard.  Next we have to agree in a format
> >for exchanging star lists.  (I propose ASCII FITS tables.)
> >Then we will want a format for database to database exchanges.
> >so that we can share data that has been combined from many images.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Creager, Robert S [mailto:CreagRS@LOUISVILLE.STORTEK.COM]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 11:16 AM
> > > To: tass@listserv.wwa.com
> > > Subject: Common and uncommon goals and software
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I've a question which will either beat me into submission, or
> > > something
> > > else.  When folks are talking about data reductions, the
> > > thread seems to
> > > ends up about how everyone is doing something different, and if a data
> > > reduction pipeline is set up, it's possible that only the
> > > person who set it
> > > up will use it.
> > > <<DELETED>>
> 
> 
> 
>