[FRBVOEvent] FRB localization contours

[Casey Law]

This sounds like a good change. My impression was that Emily and Leon
intended this protocol to be actively maintained. I suppose this could be a
v2 format and the VOEvent software would know how to parse the field
appropriately.
Do you have an example of a LIGO-like position contour?


On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 1:29 AM Shriharsh Tendulkar <shriharsh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have been discussing FRB followup with regards to Swift and other follow
> up. For interferometers, the localization regions are complicated and are
> hard to describe with a simple position ellipse. Multiple bananas are
> common. One can often get positions distributions that are different than
> the beam shape.
>
> I propose that we add a position contour field to the FRB VOEvent standard
> were we can specify LIGO-like (but much smaller size) position contours.
> This will help follow up telescopes with small fields of views in tiling
> the FRB field to search for afterglows. This field should allow for
> multiple disjoint contours since sidelobes are complicated. The advantage
> of sticking to the LIGO pattern is that the machinery already exists to
> ingest and utilize those patterns.
>
> In order to maintain backwards compatibility and to ensure that simple
> position errors are easy to communicate, this field will be in addition to
> the beam shape ellipse.
>
> This is not hard to implement, but I would like to hear thoughts from
> everyone about improvements, potential downsides and pitfalls.
>
> Cheers,
> -- Shriharsh
>
> McGill Space Institute
> _______________________________________________
> Frbvoevent mailing list
> Frbvoevent at lists.pulsarastronomy.net
>
> http://lists.pulsarastronomy.net/mailman/listinfo/frbvoevent_lists.pulsarastronomy.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pulsarastronomy.net/pipermail/frbvoevent_lists.pulsarastronomy.net/attachments/20181026/eda6d5c4/attachment.html>