Return to Home Page
Re: [vsnet-chat 6381] Re: [vsnet-id 818] Re: (fwd) Re: AAVSO names in SIMBAD
Brian,
> Just as an addendum: to my way of thinking (screwed, I know!),
> ASAS and TASS-specific names should be verboten. As either Mike or Thom
> noted, it's okay to use those for in-house bookkeeping, but don't publish
> them!
Well, I have a different thought. My perference (at least from a
standpoint of variable star resercher) is that "the name is better to
refect its nature by itself". In other words, "the object('s name)
in itself should better know how it is outstanding from other objects".
(Yes, it sounds a bit "object-oriented everything" = OOE ;-).
The GCVS and NSV designations perfectly meet this requirement, while
I see more advantage of variable-star specific names (even if the name
is less popular) rather than from all-purpose catalogs. The TASS name
says that the object is TASS-borne and vice versa. Otherwise, we will
have no reason to have different catalogs; the object coordinates will
be sufficient in all purposes [but how many people recognize
J104449.9595+213117.438 as a GRB afterglow?].
AAVSO names would be meaningful if the variablity was first or
independently recognized by the AAVSO, and if the object is flaggaed
as such (even in such cases, J2000.0 is more preferred than 1900.0).
Otherwise, adding new names to already well-known objects already
having names, which are sufficient for signifying their nature,
is simply superfluous.
Regards,
Taichi Kato
Return to the Daisaku Nogami
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
