[TDA_wg] Outline of discussion at Hotwired IV

[Bob Williams]

All--
    If I may echo Virginia Trimble's remarks, yes, the naming and ID'ing
of transients may be called a 'mess', and for inevitable (=healthy)
reasons.  Having been associated with the ongoing efforts of international
teams to coordinate naming of exoplanets and also the surface features on
Pluto and Ceres that will soon be imaged by the NASA & ESA New Horizons
and Dawn probes, I can assure you that a satisfactory resolution of our
transients dilemma will require considerable effort and is likely to not
be simple.
    In the same way that more extensive surveys for quasars forced
evolution from the early designations of QSOs such as 3Cnnn and PKSnnn+mm
to one that named each new quasar by its RA+Dec position to 0.1 arcsec
(that still is only infrequently used!), it may be that even before LSST
comes online we will be forced to define transients by some
[position+(discovery) time] designation, worrying about classification by
type/phenomenon later.
    Without being an apologist for the IAU as the umbrella organization
for such efforts I can tell you that in the case of solar system
discoveries resulting from NASA probes, NASA has indicated that any names
of features, objects, etc., discovered should ultimately have the
imprimatur of the IAU.  NASA has no way of enforcing the adoption of
names, of course, inasmuch as we can call any feature or object whatever
we wish.  But, NASA has indicated that it will adhere to IAU conventions
and process for any namings that it uses.
    This does not have an obvious extension to the complex world of
transients but it does suggest that the IAU is as good a place to begin a
discussion of transient naming and designation.  I believe the TDA WG
would be an excellent place to begin this process.
                                                                 Bob Wms


On 5/20/15 11:03 AM, "Virginia Trimble" <vtrimble at astro.umd.edu> wrote:

>Arnold Rots <arots at cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>> Recently, there was a discussion among the members of the IAU Acronym
>> Clearinghouse,
>> triggered by a request to register one of the SNe acronyms in use.
>> Not to put too fine a point on it - this area is a mess.
>>
>> There are multiple acronyms pointing to the same SN, some change names,
>> many look alike
>> but are different.
>> There seem to be two main reasons for it.
>> Obviously, it will not always be immediately clear whether a transient
>>is
>> actually a SN, but
>> there is legitimate desire to publish the transient event with a name.
>>If
>> it then later needs
>> to be included in a list of SNe, the name may, or may not, change.
>> It seems to be hard to reach agreement on a common naming scheme, since
>> different groups
>> prefer (to put it mildly) to name transients they discover in their own
>>way.
>>
>> If there is a desire to keep the classic series of names like SN1987a,
>> there will need to be
>> an effort to synchronize the naming of transients and their transition
>>to
>> SNe.
>> If not, we can either design something new or we will end up with
>>anarchy
>> where people
>> will have a hard time figuring out the identity of SNe - at least people
>> outside the circle
>> of SNe wizards intimately familiar with their individual characters.
>>
>> If the Clearinghouse can help, I am sure we would be willing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>   - Arnold
>>
>> 
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>------------------------------------
>> Arnold H. Rots                                          Chandra X-ray
>> Science Center
>> Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory                   tel:  +1 617 496
>> 7701
>> 60 Garden Street, MS 67                                      fax:  +1
>>617
>> 495 7356
>> Cambridge, MA 02138
>> arots at cfa.harvard.edu
>> USA
>> http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/
>> 
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Andy Howell <ahowell at lcogt.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >    1.
>> >       1.
>> >
>> >   Folks,
>> > Upon request, here is the outline I presented during a discussion at
>>the
>> > Hotwired meeting about what will be needed in the future to share
>> > information about transients.  The consensus was that the community
>>should
>> > write a white paper to outline what they need.  I am happy to start
>> > bringing together such a draft.  Perhaps this will get the discussion
>> > started.
>> > -Andy
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------------
>> >
>> >    1.
>> >
>> >    1)  Naming schemes (current IAU SN naming system has these
>>undesirable
>> >    issues: SNe start with a PSN name, then transition to other names,
>>may SNe
>> >    go unnamed, and many groups give the same event different names).
>> >     1.
>> >
>> >       A)  Name server? (i. e. there is a new transient at location X,
>> >       returns name if one exists, assigns new one of not).
>> >        2.
>> >
>> >       B)  Specific to event subtypes? (i.e. are separate naming
>> >       conventions for GRBs / SNe / Novae, etc, a historical accident,
>>or should
>> >       they just all be 15abc as many surveys have done)
>> >         2.
>> >
>> >    2)  Communicating discoveries
>> >     1.
>> >
>> >       A)  IAU
>> >        2.
>> >
>> >       B)  ATEL
>> >        3.
>> >
>> >       C)  Web pages
>> >         3.
>> >
>> >    3)  Sharing information in real time
>> >     1.
>> >
>> >       A)  Scheduling resources e.g. I¹m going to observer this
>>tonight.
>> >        2.
>> >
>> >       B)  Here¹s the redshift, type, and spectrum.
>> >        3.
>> >
>> >       C)  Here are the light curve points in all wavelengths
>> >        4.
>> >
>> >       D)  Social media type interactions
>> >         4.
>> >
>> >    4)  Iterating the above (e.g.. based on latest LC point and
>>redshift,
>> >    this object is likely...)
>> >     5.
>> >
>> >    5)  Automated telescope triggering
>> >     6.
>> >
>> >    6)  Archiving data / querying databases
>> >    7.
>> >
>> >
>> >    8.
>> >
>> >    Questions:
>> >
>> >
>> >    - What types of events can work under the same system?  Supernovae,
>> >    GRBs, microlensing, planets, variable stars, flares, etc.
>> >
>> >
>> >    - Do we adapt existing infrastructure?  Build something new?
>> >
>> >
>> >    - Where does the money come from?
>> >
>> >
>> >    - Do we need the IAU?
>> >
>> >
>> >    - Does it need to scale to LSST?
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > TDA_wg mailing list
>> > TDA_wg at timedomainastronomy.net
>> > https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/tda_wg
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Indeed a mess; 1897a was comet Levy; the SN was 1987A in accordance
>with convention going back to Fritz Zwicky in early 1950s and endorsed
>by IAU's second SN working group, of which I was the founding chair
>(upon instructions from Vera Rubin) after the Patras IAU in 1982.
>
>The IAU still, under international treaties going back to 1919, owns
>the right to name celestial objects, decide on units, constellation
>boundaries, and so forth, so if y'all can manage to work within
>their structure, that would probably be a Good Thing
>
>Virginia Trimble
>_______________________________________________
>TDA_wg mailing list
>TDA_wg at timedomainastronomy.net
>https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/tda_wg