[fitswcs] Re: WCS activity

[William Pence]

Don Wells wrote:
>
> There are two models which could be used to produce FITS standards:
> 
> Model A) The FITS committees could operate by a fixed set of rules
>          which would specify definite timetables for proposing and
>          deciding on revisions and for making the final accept/reject
>          decisions on proposed standards. (...)
> 
> Model B) The FITS committees could operate by a combination of public
>          discussion and private quiet negotiations (mostly one-on-one)
>          with the goal of obtaining a [nearly] unanimous consensus on
>          every FITS agreement, so that agreements will be accepted and
>          implemented universally in astronomy. (...)
> 
(...)
> I am a proponent and practitioner of Model B because I believe that it
> is the best policy for creating permanent universal data format
> standards for astronomy research.  I expect that some mixture of the
> Model A and Model B policies would probably be better than either pure
> A or pure B, but I am currently unsure about the optimum relative
> weight. I would like to hear more opinions on this question.

Dear Don,

I share the general frustration expressed by others about the slow pace of
the FITS approval process.  Besides the WCS papers, there are many other
FITS conventions or proposals that ought now to be undergoing an official
approval process, but are languishing because there is no defined procedure
for seeking approval.  Here is a short list of examples that I'm familiar
with:

    1. Convention for specifying the keyword units, as in:
       VELOCITY=          200. / (km/s) recessional velocity

    2. TLMINn and TLMAXn keywords, to define the histogram range
       for the values in a table column  (these keywords are vital
       in High Energy Astrophysics data)

    3. The CHECKSUM and DATASUM keyword convention

    4. The HIERARCH keyword convention

    5. The list of keywords defined in the FITS Standard is very
       incomplete.  There are many other widely used keywords with
       obvious meanings that should be added to the Standard (e.g.,
       RA, DEC, SUNANGLE, APERTURE, FILTER, TIME-OBS, EXPOSURE, etc.)

Others in the FITS community could easily come up with other examples of
widely used FITS conventions that are not even mentioned in any official
FITS document.  As we proceed into the Virtual Observatory era, it is
becoming more and more important to be able to reach timely agreements on
data format standards and conventions.  In my opinion, the current FITS
committees are dysfunctional and will become increasingly irrelevant, as
these sorts of decisions will out of necessity be made by other external
data standards committees or individuals.   I don't know what the best
solution is, but I believe the current process is seriously flawed. 
Personally, I would favor a process that is closer to your Model A than to
Model B.

Sincerely,
Bill Pence 
-- 
____________________________________________________________________
Dr. William Pence                          pence at tetra.gsfc.nasa.gov
NASA/GSFC Code 662         HEASARC         +1-301-286-4599 (voice)     
Greenbelt MD 20771                         +1-301-286-1684 (fax)