Thread View: sci.astro.fits
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by Lucio Chiappetti
Wed, 07 Oct 1992 21:19
Re: Some FITS tables suggestions
Author: Lucio Chiappetti
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 21:19
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 21:19
129 lines
7071 bytes
7071 bytes
In reply to a posting of mine (which in turn replied to some questions
by Bill Pence) :
On Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:01:00 GMT thompson@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov said:
>>
>>>A common example of this problem is the Modified Julian Date
>>>which has a value something like 48043.8797453703700742
>>
>> I am inclined to think this is somehow related to the need of expressing
>> time quantities like this.
>
> (He goes on to describe suggested definitions of the quantities ANGLE,
> HANGLE, DATE, DATETIME, and TIME. Definitions omitted to save space.)
>
>I strongly suggest looking into the document "Time Code Formats" from the
>Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, CCSDS 301.0-B-2, April 1990.
I knew about this standard from a previous posting (may be by the
same author, I have not looked it up) in fitsbits or WGAS, which I
have noted down
(perhaps for the disastrous state of our postal system unfortunately I tend
to consider any document NOT available via network as not existing)
>
>discussed there in some detail. The suggested format for ASCII encoding is
>briefly outlined below for the following example (5 Oct 1992 at 1:23:45 UT)
>
> 1992-10-05T01:23:45.000Z
>
However perhaps I gave the WRONG impression that the topic of my mail
was to establish conventions for ASCII encoding |
That was not my primary aim | I intended to solicit a discussion about
NAMES and CONTENTS of keywords from a semantic and logical point of view
(the fact that those keywords need an ASCII encoding is specific to a
FITS implementation, while my concern goes beyond FITS into the native
representations used by analysis systems ... which MAY be non FITS but
SHOULD be FITS-compatible)
I am ready to comply with whatever ASCII encoding for date-times will
be agreed for FITS in addition to the one currently used in DATE and
DATE-OBS.
My interim solution was not so different from the CCSDS scheme and
had that in mind since it is very easy to map it ;
1992-10-05-01:23:45.00
actually it is the notation used by VMS. I find more LEGIBLE to have
an hyphen instead of a T, and no Z at the end (which makes me think
of "Zulu" timezone notation), but it is really trivial to switch to
the other notation.
See more below on standards ....
On Wed, 7 Oct 92 16:03:42 +0100 <forveill@gag.observ-gr.fr> said:
>
>with the existing standard. Specifically, A VALID FITS FILE MUST USE SI
>UNITS. This tends to be repeatedly forgotten, even though it was already
>explicitly specified in the original FITS paper.
>X and Y should therefore be stored in metres, not microns, ENERGY in Joules
>not kev (or cm**-1, or Kelvin, or GHz), and so on...
Again I gave the WRONG impression that my concern was on units of
measurement, while I was more concerned about the fact the file be
self-documenting about the units used, and about establishing conventions
for names, contents and "binary" representation.
Concerning SI units and alike, when I was a student I was an enthusiast
of the SI, and I swore never to use cgs and similar things.
When I later started my research life I realized one needs to be more
flexible. I am not scandalized to use Angstroms or keVs (actually I
cannot THINK of an X-ray spectrum if not in photon/cm2/s/keV vs keV,
and of an UV spectrum if not in erg/cm2/s/A vs A ... and I believe
this is what everybody does ... I have never seen a paper on Ap.J. with
photons/m2/s/J or J/m2/s/m
Similarly the examples I made in my posting were just examples (although
I will not find very useful to give photon energies in Joules or to
use metres instead of microns to measure positions on a CCD plate: the
latter example is particularly specific to Bill Pence's posting, since
it avoids an unnecessary factor 10**6 and therefore 6 digits of -
fictitious - precision)
Concerning standards, therefore they also are subject to a silent
judgement from the community, based on comfort and legibility.
There is a nice paper by Arnold Toynbee, the historian, explaining why
the French Revolution Calendar was not able to supplant the traditional
calendar.
Everybody uses Internet domains for e-mail addressing, which are legible,
instead of the awful X.400 notations.
Some years ago there was some proposed standard to express ALL decimal
numbers in exponential notation in power of 1000, so a date in year
1992 had to expressed as 1.992d3 or something like that : it fell in
the place where everything is forgotten.
On the contrary other standards, of which FITS looks a working example,
meet the general agreement and ARE used.
I would however just reiterate my concept, that I regard the two points
treated above (ASCII-encoding and units) as completely minor in my line
of thought, while I would once again solicit a discussion on names of
keywords (and their content).
I feel that this would be beneficial AT LEAST to the X-ray community which
is now working separately at many separate missions, in fields like :
list of photons :
should we call photon detector-pixel positions X and Y, or XPOSITN and
YPOSITN (8-char FITS names) or whatever ?
should we call photon energy expressed as a PHA channel (not keV) with
the name of ENERGY (I would say no and reserve it for keV, Joule or
whatever physical unit) or PHA or what else ?
time profiles (this perhaps also beyond X-ray astronomy) :
it is important to agree a convention on the format of such files as
binary tables, on the names of the columns and on the additional
keywords needed to specify time of each bin
I hope to listen to some discussion on the latter topics in the near
future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A member of G.ASS : Group for Astronomical Software Support
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucio Chiappetti - IFCTR/CNR Milano | U N I C U I Q U E
via Bassini 15 - I-20133 Milano - Italy | System Manager
Internet: LUCIO@IFCTR.MI.CNR.IT | FORTUNAE SUAE
Decnet: IFCTR::LUCIO (39610::LUCIO) |
Bitnet: EXOSAT@IMISIAM |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Some FITS tables suggestions
Author: William Thompson, code 682.1, x2...
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 22:02
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 22:02
64 lines
4016 bytes
4016 bytes
In article <9210071555.AA26547@fits.cv.nrao.edu>, Lucio Chiappetti <lucio@ifctr.mi.cnr.it> writes... (stuff deleted) >I would however just reiterate my concept, that I regard the two points >treated above (ASCII-encoding and units) as completely minor in my line >of thought, while I would once again solicit a discussion on names of >keywords (and their content). > >I feel that this would be beneficial AT LEAST to the X-ray community which >is now working separately at many separate missions, in fields like : > > list of photons : > > should we call photon detector-pixel positions X and Y, or XPOSITN and > YPOSITN (8-char FITS names) or whatever ? > should we call photon energy expressed as a PHA channel (not keV) with > the name of ENERGY (I would say no and reserve it for keV, Joule or > whatever physical unit) or PHA or what else ? > > time profiles (this perhaps also beyond X-ray astronomy) : > > it is important to agree a convention on the format of such files as > binary tables, on the names of the columns and on the additional > keywords needed to specify time of each bin > I would just like to make two comments on this general topic. No, three comments--the zeroth comment being that it's a very difficult thing to do. One thing to avoid is the mistake I've been told the Planetary Data System made with their Object Descriptor Language (although I haven't had any experience with it directly). As I understand it, basic names got frozen in at an early stage, so that for example the keyword "FLUX" could only be used with particle fluxes, and light measurements could only be referred to as a "BRIGHTNESS" (which is a different thing). Of course, you might say that brightness is the quantity that astronomers are really interested in, but I argue that one does not want to limit oneself to specific "most-common" observation modes and data types. I can think of situations where flux would be the fundamental quantity of measurements, e.g. solar UV luminosity monitoring, or the flux distribution as a function of height in a planetary atmosphere from a planetary probe. Flux is the fundamental quantity when concerned with energy transport in a plane-parallel atmosphere, and a standard file format should be able to handle data from theoretical calculations as well as from actual observations. Secondly, I would just like to emphasize that such standardization should proceed outside of the formalization process of the FITS standard itself (which I'm sure was Lucio Chiappetti's intent as well). Any such effort could only consider a subset of the possible types of observations and the forms the data could take. Granted, it could possibly cover a large fraction of the astronomical data actually taken, but there will always be data products and observations which don't fall into the mold. It may be best for this effort to proceed along disciplinary lines, rather than to try to encompass all possible astronomical data into one grand scheme. For instance, I'm aware of a standardization process of this sort for radio interferometry data, I believe organized by the Green Bank group. Simple image data already has some standardization applied to it, since that's what FITS was originally designed for. Just in general, I think more progress will be made if the goals remain more focused. Bill Thompson
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads