...
- I agree completely, we should also have galactic coordinates!
Comments from Jean: Yes, and galactic coordinates have always been included in the test catalogs that we have produced.
17. Technical issues in generating the catalog (25 July 2007)
...
- Should the catalogue format be always the same over the succeeding catalogue versions? If we have no error ellipses in the first edition but in later ones, should we make evolve the catalogue format?
- As we discussed during the past LAT meeting we should take provision for more than a single counterpart association (to use the new term
. For how many should we take provision? For each counterpart association we would have a counterpart name and a counterpart probability.
Comments from Jean:
- I see no reason why we should not deliver a 30-100 MeV flux for all sources (unless we think we do not master the IRF well enough), as well as a monthly flux history. A faint but very soft source can have a significant flux below 100 MeV, and faint sources can also be variable enough that they will show up in a few time bins. The real issue here is to decide how to handle upper limits.
18. Catalogue entry names (26 July 2007)
I (Jürgen) would like to reiterate the point 14: we should have more standard column names. By standard I mean names similar to those found in other catalogues. The coordinates would be RAJ2000, DECJ2000, GLON and GLAT, uncertainties would be preceeded by "e_..." etc.
19. Prefactor missing (20 November 2007)
I jusr recognised that the prefactor of the powerlaw fit was missing in the above catalogue format description. Jean's DC2 & SC2 catalogues had this prefactor but no error on it. I stronly recommend to officially add 'Prefactor' and 'e_Prefactor' to the catalogue (and to rename error quantities as suggested above using the standard 'e_<quantity>' scheme implemented by CDS.