Return to Home Page
Dear Kato-san, > We already received observations using the USNO-B1.0 number, and will > be incoporated in the VSNET database (in case they follow the correct > format). The older observations with the initially suggested temporary > designation "HXPEGunknown" are already present in our public database. So now the observations of one star are recorded with two different names in the VSNET database. Kato-san, the VSNET administrator, it is your database. Is it the acceptable situation for you? You have already known that different names are used for one star. Why didn't you call attention to us to use one common designation? Why don't you merge the data of "HXPEGunknown" and "USNO-B1.0_1026-0769191" in your database? > > Only in the case of a new nova, Kato-san leads us to use a common > > temporary designation, like OPHnova2003, soon after the discovery. But > > it is an exceptional case. The principle seems as same as the CBAT to > > me. I mean, only a nova is deal well. > > This is a measure to avoid many variants of reported names, since > nova observations can be very popular. We initially used GSC4822.39 for > V838 Mon, HadV46 for V463 Sct. We don't necessarily follow the same > principle as in the CBAT; if it would look like the same, they would be > a consequence of evolutionary convergence ;-). Sorry. I made a mistake. Please replace "CBAT" in my message to "GCVS team" or "Dr. Samus". Dr. Samus kindly assigns the GCVS number soon after the nova discovery to avoid confusion. Kato-san kindly points out what temporary name should be used to report to VSNET just after the nova discovery to avoid confusion. They seem the same principle to me. Special efforts are paid (almost) only in the case of novae :-) Best regards, -- Seiichi Yoshida comet@aerith.net http://vsnet.aerith.net/
Return to the Daisaku Nogami
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
