On May 14, 2006, at 7:04 AM, wellvexed wrote:
> So, the only safe means of doing a SIMBAD search is a cone search.
> Now, because people mostly deal with well known objects, or matters
> they themselves are deeply involved in, they forget this point.
It's a good tool, but when a one-to-one relationship exists between
VSX objects and SIMBAD objects, VSX should be able to link directly
to the SIMBAD record. If at all possible, that SIMBAD record would
also eventually link back to VSX.
> IF the full IBVS listings did exist, it'd be in VSX. Any volunteers
> to do the work, instead of complain about the lack of it? No?
> Thought not.
Wrong. That is exactly what is about to happen, with me doing my
stars and other guys doing their stars. We all care very deeply for
our little universe of stars and, through an efficient, distributed
fashion, they will be entered, crosslinked and otherwise attended to.
> Anyway, if you use VSX and go to the NSVS object, or get there via a
> cone search, and press the Search Nearby link on the J2000 coordinate
> line (a very useful feature, methinks), you will find that this is
> also an ASAS3 variable, but you will not find _ any_ IBVS entry for
> this object. If you wish you can mark up one, fully, from your paper,
> and submit it to the VSX as a separate entry, and it will be then up
> to the moderators. You can further link all three objects as the
> same, submit the information, and leave it to the moderators to solve.
> HOWEVER, do note that if you link out to simbad clickable map, and
> press the central star on said map, you end up at the simbad page and
> if you then click the DISPLAY button where it says "References: 3 from
> 1983 to 2005", then you will see your paper listed, and links can be
> followed to the full paper, all from the NSVS entry in VSX, which
> could've been arrive at via a cone search using your own paper's
> coordinates as input, instead of assuming GSC identity is a valid
> simbad identifier, which it is in this case, but it ain't always
> necessarily so.
You are right, this does work, its just cumbersome. It is the right
way to do it in many cases, I'm sure, but as I said above, when one-
to-one relationships exists, they should be linked more directly.
said another way: When at all possible, the name in VSX should be a
name recognized by SIMBAD's name resolver.
> Now, importantly, we extend this to the general case.
> What priority should naming have in VSX? I suggest low, and will
> outline why here.
I agree, that in general, VSX should not be hampered by naming
issues. However, because it is moderated through a rather distributed
fashion, I think the submitters and moderators can make a very high-
quality, detail-oriented database over time and having name
consistency, which you mention would be nice, is possible incrementally.
> Finally, on this specific star, if there are differences twixt the
> ASAS3, Gettels NSVS and IBVS details, other than naming, Michael
> should enter it as a new variable entry, using the IBVS paper as
> reference. Work can then be done on deciding which are the better
> details of this star, and the main sheet kept, and the other sheets
> subsumed in whatever way Chris finally decided to deal with solved
> cases of redundant duplication between catalogues. Whilst that work
> is resolved, researchers who happen to come across this star for
> whatever reason will have the three entries and be able to decide for
> themselves. However, if the issue is only one of name, the comments
> appended by Michael to this data sheet are not needed, his paper is
> found by proper use of the interface and proper research by the
> worker. Comments should be kept few and tight, once comments start
> increasing in number per star, especially if mostly meaningless (ie
> does the IBVS paper add anything to the NSVS entry in VSX? I haven't
> checked), they simply won't get read, and therefore may as well not be
This is a judgment call, IMHO. I can almost imagine blog-like
discussions taking place as comments on a star. You see this a lot
with knowledgebases -- associated discussion as part of the
knowledge, in a sense. I can imagine situations where the comments
get unusefully dense, but I suspect that would not be the common case.
In terms of this star, I agree my comment may not be necessary,
especially if the star linked directly to SIMBAD. If that were the
case it would be 3 clicks to get to my abstract. Right now it is one
click to get to the discovery data. That may not be bad, but it is a
bit redundant. If the point of VSX is utility, I don't see a problem
with convenience links and comments.
> DISCLAIMER :
In regards to your disclaimer: If you don't like it, go away. If you
do like it, pull up a chair. This irrational in-between business has
the patience of your average reader stretched to the limit.