The first approach, sometimes called the ``we've thought of everything'' philosophy or TOE, is the one that has been traditionally employed. The designers of such systems have tried to predict everything that might be needed (in their experience as optical spectroscopists, aperture synthesists, X-ray observers, etc.) for the general case of a picture, spectrum, time series, or whatever. These designs generally work well for their inventor, but when others try to use them they find omissions, inconsistencies, ambiguities and limitations, and either have to add new items of their own or use existing items in a non-standard way. Even where a new form of data is expressed in what appears to be the standard way, experience has shown that precise interpretation by different application programs of all the various ancillary items (e.g. exposure time, astrometric parameters, etc.) cannot be relied on, and so these items become little more than comments.
The Starlink designs reject the TOE approach in favour of one where:
The third point--the treatment of extensions--is
crucial. Most astronomer/programmers feel drawn to the
familiar TOE approach, where
there is a place to put the
, exposure time,
polarimeter setting,
relative humidity, feed-horn
collimation parameters, etc., and are unhappy that
many of the items they wish to include have to be
``demoted'' by being
moved into an extension. Alternatively, they are
willing to accept the need for extensions, but only for
the idiosyncratic data required
by other astronomers. It is
important to understand that the extensions in the
Starlink standard formats are an essential part of
the scheme, safe havens where important but specialised
items can reside, accessible to programs which
understand them, and automatically copied from
generation to generation. All extensions should be registered
with the Starlink Head of Applications to avoid
clashes between different groups of applications. Certain
general-purpose extensions will be highly standardised, and
will be used by many application packages.
The combination of (i) trying to keep the formats simple and (ii) defining precisely how the different items should be interpreted by application programs has produced a result which has remarkably little evidence of astronomy in it. This should not be regarded as a worry; the astronomical information, relating to astrometry, radiometry, timing, and so on, will reside in standard extensions which will be defined in due course. A byproduct of this conservatism (which came largely from the need to reduce the task to a manageable size) is that the standard structures, and the general-purpose applications which process them, may have uses outside astronomy.
Starlink Standard Data Structures