On 9 December 2013 15:34, Tim Jenness <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:27 AM, David Berry <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> On 6 December 2013 22:12, Tim Jenness <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > At the risk of going all detective librarian on everyone (even more)
>> > SUN/2
>> > is confusing me a lot. Maybe David knows what happened.
>> >
>> > June 1981: there were at least 9 SUNs (SUN/9 was on STAK and TRAK)
>> > By 1982 there were at least 32 SUNs.
>> >
>> > In 1994 SUN/2 referred to MAG (see SG/6)
>> > In 1996 MAG was SUN/171.1
>> > In 1999 SUN/2.1 appeared as NDG (according to repository history).
>> >
>> > So far, so linear, but in ID/12 written in 1993 by David, he refers to
>> > "The
>> > NDF group access package as described in SUN/2"
>> >
>> > So SUN/2 had two values between 1993 and 1996. David, do you have any
>> > idea
>> > how NDG got its SUN?
>> >
>> > I'm starting to wonder whether the MAG (SUN/2) was already itself a
>> > reissue.
>> >
>> > I also don't understand how NDG could be given SUN/2 in 1999 given that
>> > we
>> > were happily up to SUN/222 by that point and obviously there was no
>> > driver
>> > for reuse based on character counts. Even in 1993 we were up to at least
>> > SUN/162.
>>
>> It's all ancient history - or at least well beyond the limit of my
>> failing memory. And my mail archive doesn't go back that far. As I
>> recall, NDG went for quite a while without any SUN since its only use
>> was inside IRAS90. But as other people started to want to use it (e.g.
>> Mark moved CCDPACK to NDG in June 2000) a doc became necessary, so I
>> applied to the librarian (Martin Bly?) for a SUN number as usual. I
>
>
> I'm inclined to say "librarian" because I've not really met a librarian that
> deliberately breaks cross-referencing from older documents.
>
>
>>
>> have the vaguest recollection that MAG had been moved to another
>> number (don't ask me why, I've not a clue), and Martin said I may as
>> well re-use SUN/2. No-one saw anything evil in document number re-use
>> then, and low numbers are easier to remember than high numbers.
>>
>
> Thanks. Grrr.
>
>
>>
>> Regarding the comment in ID/12 (which I presume is an IRAS90 internal
>> document?) the " as described in SUN/2" must have been a later
>> addition to the document.
>
>
> That would explain it. Although the person editing it obviously decided not
> update the date in the document. tsk tsk.
Blush...
> What's the provenance of ID numbers? A RAL IRAS project? I can index those
> at ADS whilst I'm at it.
I *think* I was the only person to use the "ID" notation. As to
whether they were "Iras90 Documents" or "Internal Documents", I'm not
sure . The point is they were internal documentation for IRAS90. I
suspect I (mis)managed this numbering scheme myself.
David
|