[vsnet-id 735] Re: (fwd) Re: [AAVSO-DIS] WW HYA

[Taichi Kato <tkato@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp>]

Re: (fwd) Re: [AAVSO-DIS] WW HYA

>      That's fine, but again you give the designation from USNO-A1.0, 
> but do not specify this.  As you know, the A2.0 numbers are completely
> different---never mind that they probably should not be promugated anyway
> (so far the USNO-x.x products are rather transient, so introducing the
> numbers into the literature only adds confusion).  Even B1.0 is likely
> to be replaced in a year or so.

   This convention seems to be some sort of preference.  There have been
a lot of discussions in the past.  See e.g.

   [vsnet-chat 3615]
   http://vsnet.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp/vsnet/chat3000/msg03615.html

   [vsnet-chat 3616]
   http://vsnet.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp/vsnet/chat3000/msg03616.html

   These statements, together with the other relevant messages, seem to
show that what you suggested was your opinion or preference, and not
a recommendation from the catalog compilers.  There is no existing
reasonable designation to uniquely (both in terms of uniqueness of
the referred object and uniqueness of the designation) specify the USNO
entries.

   As Brian mentioned, I used USNO A1.0, and followed the designation
that was used to (apparently) first describe the object in USNO A1.0
(V2176 Cyg = USNO1425.09823278).
In case there may be a possibility of a confusion, read "USNO A1.0" where
simple "USNO" is specified.

>      In re IRAS names, there is no need to show the faint-source name
> when a regular point-source ID is available.

   As you may know, the designations of the IRAS source were given
independently on different IRAS catalogs.  There are indeed some
irregularities between these catalogs.

Regards,
Taichi Kato

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp