Subject: Re: OBJECT names (was Re: Draft of FITS standard revision 1.2..)

From: sla at ucolick.borg (Steve Allen)
Date: 4 May 1998 14:13:33 -0700

In article <199804171526.LAA06339 at fits.cv.nrao.edu>,
Don Wells  <dwells at NRAO.EDU> wrote:
>The text should also recommend that data systems which originate
>OBJECT strings (e.g., telescope/instrument data systems) encourage
>observers to use strings which conform to the recommendations of the
>Designations Task Group of IAU Commission 5 (Astronomical Data). The
>text should cite "IAU Recommendations for Nomenclature"
><http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/iau-spec.html>.

Our data systems have always provided for the maximum possible FITS
string length as the value for the object card.  Unfortunately, this
opens the door for other forms of abuse.

It is extremely commonplace for observers to set the string to something like
OBJECT  = 'NGC 1234, 400 s, blue filter, 1200 line grating'
This is done even though there may be other FITS keywords which contain
the appended values.

Indeed, there's movement to create a next-generation interface for
Keck and Lick which will actually permit the observer to specify a set
of keywords whose values are to be appended into the OBJECT string.

Before we actually do this, I'd appreciate external commentary from
the FITS community on the (lack of) merits of abusing the OBJECT
keyword in this way.
-- 
Steve Allen          UCO/Lick Observatory       Santa Cruz, CA 95064
sla at ucolick.borg     Voice: +1 408 459 3046     FAX (don't): +1 408 454 9863
WWW: http://www.ucolick.borg/~sla               PGP public keys:  see WWW
Junk mail is irrelevant -- my return address has been assimilated.