and something to fidget with okay see right on your marks get set go kay right such a long time since i have done these did did you guys actually had sort of the interaction or discussions while you we doing the annotation did you have had stages of clarification or i suppose you did right we did yeah at the beginning we did we did a training set did not we and then compared to see yeah yeah we did 2 of those did not we we probably did i think we did 2 training sets and then we had at least one meeting with you where we talked it all through yeah and supposedly decided on things and then we did th all the rest of them separately yes yeah so did you feel that it was some some kind of some process of convergence like that initially had quite different ideas about the phrase types and and markations and then eventually you came up with some kind of rules that you set up between the 2 of you yes i think or i would say no but i d i mean i thought we had basically the same ideas to b i do not remember ever having strong arguments about what should be in what group or it was just the rules about things that s yeah okay yeah but you convinced me no that is true it is the length of it really but we had and what counted as wha as for the spectral features it was more confusing what counted as a spectral feature and we had a long discussion about that that is really hard yeah yeah but i do not remember sort of arguing from different sides and converging just sort of piecing out what would come up and agreeing what we would do no yeah yeah and we we had a manual which we have not got here do you reckon if we get a copy would that be useful it probably would be but i do not i it has been a long time yeah since we have done this are we allowed to leave the meeting now it is started can we get ben to print us out one yeah i think so yeah that would be handy okay yeah i dropped a okay yes now we are moving with the headphones sign off so did dere derek and ben has the the file that they this manual or we did send it to him yeah he has had it certainly yes he is he has been e emailed it yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah he has been emailed it while ago otherwise we can go onto our system and get it 0 okay now he has gone there is a cool little count down clock that lets you know exactly how long you have been meeting as well yes let us say something rude 0 really excellent i 0 top we should have these things in our area you know we do not have high tech things but no how little work we did no we do not at all i am doing that at yes well i guess there is telescopes but that that is that is different though is not it yeah but they are hardly in our areas that is not no yeah they have got a conference thing have not they in the a t c yeah that is right although you 0 it is not actually used all that often these days i think i had to fly to germany to do a teleconference the same as you did for the interview yeah i did as well gosh and they fly you to germany and put you on a 4 way teleconference with 3 people in chile and had they asked we could have done it fine at a t c and saved me having to to go to germany for a day right aye no right but gosh they have not got that far it is a very strange interview feeling as well because you can not see them while you are giving your talk and you miss all the the body language and things yeah yeah because they just show usually they have a camera on you and a camera on them right but during the talk part they have a camera on i believe them cause i could see that guy reading a newspaper halfway through my talk and then they had a camera on showing what my slides were and so you forget that they can see you at all right right and so when all that was over they were answering me questions and the view switched again i realized they were sitting there in the interview going and mine was even it was different again so w we had it was a 4 way split screen with me and 3 other people and it just stayed like that right and i had the talk on a laptop in front of me and they had the talk on their laptops right and i had to tell tell them when to press the button to turn the page 0 right yeah gosh it just and you can not say looking over here yes if you see towards the top left of the image you will notice and luckily olivia had warned me it might be complicated yeah like 0 yeah and so i had something with without very many n not little flying in and things because that would just make it really difficult that is very artificial though is not it yeah not very sensible yeah right but i practiced the talk yeah standing up in front of it and pointing to things yeah yeah and you are sitting down in front of and you could see yourself but not only could s you see yourself you see yourself bounce back 2 seconds later by the time the signal had gone to chile and back that must be really weird yeah is there it is really strange gosh so you are like 0 did i just do that and then you reacting to what you did a while ago yeah gosh it was a really daft situation well okay right it is printing it out as well great lovely excellent and then we can start fighting about right shall w shall we dive in in the interim or yes let us continuum flux or continuum yes flux on its own would not be a spectral feature i think it should probably just be continuum if it was continuum luminosity you probably would not it ooh no you would not do i think i am do i think i am working out who is top and bottom yeah i am happy enough with that i do not feel strongly about it okay it is my part i actually have not really thought about like marking or not marking who is top and who is bottom 0 i think maybe that would make sense for you guys to know ah i do not know i think i think we have worked ben said he he left it out on purpose which is reason yeah yes and i am pretty sure i am bottom anyway yeah i am pretty sure i am top so even on one we can tell okay fair enough cause i would fight for line being a spectral feature as well right right yeah i think that is probably right as well it is a bit hard to mark on this let us do that okay next so so you sorry just for the convention you you you marking which which the annotation you think is is the right one the ones we want okay fair enough yes and if neither then we will have to put something else okay okay so here we are missing soft component on the bottom and i think you are probably right soft component is a spectral feature there if you get line i get soft component ooh do you think sorry i i should not intervene probably well if you do not no but well the is not it that if it is a region of the spectrum that is u yeah go ahead and we can point at it and then it is a sp a sp spectral f f yeah feature and that is not pi you can point to a soft component you can point to a soft component you think yeah yeah okay alright it is a big bump in the soft bit okay is it okay okay now is a feature part of spectral feature i think you are right there as well it c yeah i am not fussed about that cause it it is not just absorption they both mean the same thing but it is not just absorption 5 k v it is actually something in the absorption that you are seeing if it was a a dip in absorption or a yeah a lack of absorption you would put it in because we said we would put describing words this is the this is the thing you point to yep yeah that is the thing you point to and this is a ph a physical mechanism so yeah i would say 2 down you would get a pencil 215 to go excellent that is 2 that is definitely 2 you are right ah there is one with the equivalent width i think you are right that we we were not going to mark the equivalent width but we were going to mark the lines i think that is true yeah alrighty what are we missing broad line broad line and that should be a and nebulae yeah that is true you get that as a source type i do not remember what we were doing with nebulae we were not doing like h 2 regions and stuff were we i can not remember i can not remember actually should we see when the manual comes yeah so let us come back to that one yeah yep yes i what we are doing about that either we were doing descriptions that made things separate classes in which case i would argue for elliptical i think select a yeah that seems reasonable my god i have just gone mad with the underlining here yes yeah i breaking the power law index i think that is probably a you can point to it but equally it is not a it is something you have derived yeah that is the thing but you would not know it was a p yeah the parallel index is something you desi derive a break in a spectrum is something you can point at yeah so so what is a breaking a power law index i think it is a feature because in the s sp spectrum it does that and it does that so it yeah yeah b that thing there yep that is that is where it breaks okay so yeah slight depression of the continuum near the lyman limit i think you are right there as well and if i did it again i would say a slight depression of the continuum and possibly well but we are supposed to say w cause you can see both the slight depression and the lyman limit but we are supposed to say the descriptive words of the features so yeah i if it was absorption at h alpha that would all be one or absorption at 5000 nanometres would all be one anyway yeah but they would be the same they would both be the same spectral feature whereas here they are 2 spectral features because it was at a certain point but this is near there is a lyman limit which you could see and then there is a slight depression near it but yeah i think you are right it is it is near rather than at it is not yeah let us mark that then do you have a sense about that 0 you want to s split that one and do you into 2 yeah yes yeah yeah i would agree with that i think yeah is that k clear excellent 0 yeah okay absorption huh that i did not mark because it is the physical process of absorption yes and you are right there as well not the the thing tell you who is more awake at this would there be other cases where you would actually mark an ab absorption or yeah if it was there is an absorption feature or absorption to see it the spectrum at this wave length an absorption feature but when you say for example the the quasar is absorbed that just means the quasar is behind a a bunch of stuff cheers thanks yeah so that is describing something physically rather than describing the spectrum itself thank you okay so thank you there is no steep soft component but our 2 k v i do not remember what we were going to do about things that were not there it is not something you can point to you could point to it if it were there yes you could i tend to miss out things if they are too long but if it had been there you would have you would point to it marked it yeah had it as a feature yeah yes i think you are right yeah should we go back to number 5 is that the nebula huh but yes nebula 0 yeah was it the nebula thin yeah yeah what were we saying about nebula source types no nebula counts does not it i think it does right we were not matching a h 2 regions because it was a region i think was the argument for that yeah line again line in ratios yeah but that is line ratios but i remember we were not going to mark line ratios but we were going to mark cau we are here where you have got equivalent width of h beta orbited but ratio is different i guess line in in line in line ratios is modifying ratios it is not it it is it is not talking about specific lines i guess it is similar a line ratio is a thing yeah because you have not actually listed explicitly that you are not going to include it right do not include l line ratio is after abundances so is that the value or is that the word yeah 0 i see what you mean yeah do not it in include the derived property yeah yeah i mean you would not you would not include abundances or line strengths well no yeah it should not be in you would not include line in that okay i do not think whoop no 0 i see what you are doing you are circling the one we like right the one to keep yeah damped lyman alpha absorbers i think that is a spectral feature even though it is you would not mark the source type 0 sorry yep so so can i just ask w w now you just aligned d sorry you circle the word in the in the outline which did not here yes because we do not want it underlined right sorry it should not be highlighted ok 0 i see okay so right damped lyman see again that is these are source types the i mean it is not a source type yeah cheers m i see b but it is also a i i if we have but damped lyman alpha absorbers are th are physical things not spectral features but th but you also absorb them by y you observe them by their spectral feature what were we doing for things broad absorption line quasar for example we were marking the broad absorption line as well as broad absorption line quasar ye so i think it should be the same as that if it is defined by a spectral feature we should mark it but you would not be able to point something in a spectrum and say that is a damped lyman alpha absorber unless you would here you could point to damped lyman alpha though yeah because it says here spectral features we are now referring to a type of source e g quasar yeah you could do but we would not say absorbers were a type of source not a bis specific type of source but i think still the the spectral feature ge counts even though it is m a modifier of something okay i am not certain about that but i what do you reckon bob well i mean you could look at this this spectrum and spot that th l lyman alpha has been damped but that is a n spectral feature d do not with damped lyman alpha observers you them a variety of places along the line of sight so you have to know 0 yeah no that is true how does it work i do not know what which does not help if you look at a quasar and you see a bunch if you got a bunch of clouds of gas in the way you can see these things and but you would not be able to point at one of them and say ah that is a damp yeah different redshifts yeah yeah yeah that is true they are going to be at different red shifts y ye but that does not mean that it is you could still say that is damped lyman alpha and that is damped lyman alpha i do not know how they do th that yeah but you could say all of that is damped lyman alpha but but you are guessing in a way though are not you yeah so but is not that j always the case with something that is not particularly ye well no but you see them in all sorts of different red red shifts it is like the the lyman alpha forest sort of and i am not certain i would i would mark that that is a that is a tricky one certain certainly it is a tricky one it it if it was if it was some other spectral feature and then absorbers would we mark it no i would not because it is they are physical things not spectral features you can not point at something on a spectrum and say that is definitely a d damped lyman alpha some i g and i guess it is because they are modifiers of this source type and we would not mark that source type but but we include modifiers of source types we would mark would not you we would not mark absorbers no we are not marking absorbers but if it was a damped lyman alpha quasar would not you have all of it then we would mark quasar and we would mark damped lyman alpha right well th yeah th that is in the the manual yeah if it was broad absorption line quasar we would mark it yeah yeah so so it is just i guess whether damped lyman alpha is a spectral feature in itself it is tricky one which i would probably say it was but then i have never looked at i one i g i guess it is i okay and that it is altering the spectrum is not it i mean is a ch change in the s spectrum of okay it does not have to be something that is specific background objects i guess y you know we we say a big blue bump or a soft or a continuum and we include those but we were not going to include s descriptions of spectral features that were based on fitting were we that true but w we have included c power law though is that right have we well no we included p steep soft component sorry and here we included breaking the power law because of the break steep soft component yeah breaking the power law is something i am not certain of steep soft component is something you can point at in a spectrum and say there it is but there is still some degree of fitting and it is steep you are saying yeah yeah you know what is steep and what is shallow it is tricky let us have that for now then you if if we change our mind later when we go through we can always come back to it and say yeah that is grand yeah yeah yes no again i would say this this is a physical process not a spectral feature yeah you are right and absorption again yeah right what have we got different here i do not have k star but i should do it is yeah it is that one and this one here 0 we were including feature within spectral feature wait where okay okay what is wrong with broad h alpha i think i just missed it right i think it is not as if it is a although it is 4 widths half maximum it is still the s the line within it yeah okay that was easy silicone 2 is an element rather than a in this context rather than a line these are the lines i guess what you w if was not in there then you would have it silicone 2 lines at but without with the i think that means silicone 2 derived from these 2 features yeah yeah i think so too in that okay m that is actually an ionic species is not it actually yeah that is true yeah not a a spectral feature as such 0 on its own yeah that is true lyman alpha forest clouds 0 no we are back to it again lyman alpha forest you can point to on the spectrum that is true but lyman alpha forest clouds are source types we are not marching marking so we have not basically we just have not got a a rule for spectral features within or referring to s types of source when we are not bother marking the source which we do not mark yeah but we can just be consistent so are we marking h 2 and h 2 regions for example and i do not think we are cause that is not a spectral feature in the spectrum we are looking at 0 that is true but b yeah but i guess it is not it is not defined by a spectral feature though h 2 region whereas no yeah lyman alpha forest is defined by the definition of lyman alpha forest clouds is that they have lyman alpha forests but saying that is not the same as saying we have seen that in a spectrum whereas a broad line quasar someone has looked at it and they have seen a broad line but someone is l someone is looked at that spectrum but if you are discussing lyman alpha forest clouds they could just be discussing the physical object which we are not marking b b why are not you marking it then because they were not i do not know i do not think we were making diffuse diffuse emission or the the anything blobby i di i did not mark yeah huh i it it would not count as a source type or well that is p what i am p pondering really yeah yeah yeah i w i remembered not marking nebula or clouds or yeah but this is species of cloud it is a p yeah a particular species of cloud not just a general cloud is not it so is not that different it is a modifier of of clouds but i do not th do not think if we are including the yeah i think if we are not including nebula and clouds we can not include i think we just have to decide whether we are doing it yeah but bob is saying maybe we should be including nebula and clouds perhaps we should have done but we have not for the whole thing but we have not done for the whole thing so i think maybe we just need to put under do not include diffuse emission okay th yeah then i guess not then yeah but then we still have to decide if we do not label the source what do we do about the spectral features that define that source i if we have for example broad absorption line object we mark that we mark broad absorption line in that but that is cause we have to know it is a rather broad absorp absorption line object we have seen it it is an but just to know this is a lyman alpha forest cloud we are seen lyman alpha forest and but it is in this s sp sp sp sp spectrum of another object though it it is not the spectrum of the clouds but it is still a spectral feature even if it is not it might be a spectral feature i not in the cloud yeah but it a spectral feature in the quasar the lyman alpha forest that is true yeah and he could point at it that is true and say that is yeah okay let us keep them yeah yeah even if not marked no one else can read that sorry yeah nope okay so th lyman alpha forest again and here yep and that definitely is a spectral feature on its own then cause it does not even say lyman alpha forest clouds yeah yeah each helium 2 optical depth i think that is elemental species there that is derived you are right yeah 0 0 we marked the same lines 0 rubbish excellent what have we done differently you have got line brightness temperatures cause the property of the line they are going to we are going to have a lot of these yeah yeah we are and we were not using line what was the one we did not do before line ratio we were not doing yeah i do not think line brightness temperatures counts cause it is not talking about a specific line yeah so yeah was talking about l lines okay i do not think that counts feature line feature need that right sorry can we just go back th one page did did you resolve the the li the different segmentations like the main problem was there is only one difference here 0 sorry i i thought it was a problem of like one having underlined the entire 0 sorry 0 no no no i i se okay sorry no no they are the same otherwise yeah they are all the same yeah i see quite impressively yes excellent that one is the same damped lyman alpha again systems yeah and damped lyman alpha data that is a modifier of data i can not even but if you said i mean that is that is a description of the type of data if you said the spectral dat a d the continuum is spet i really do not think that counts but if it is a damped lyman alpha spectrum you would mark damped lyman alpha because in the spectrum and and a da is equivalent of spectrum i would not but you would i think just because it has got a spectral feature in the phrase you would not for example when we were saying silicone 2 levels we did not mark silicone 2 that is that has got nothing to do with the spectrum that is because it was talking about s but if it is saying silicone 2 line levels the new word but what this actually means is we have made some measurements based on damped lyman alpha measurements and they tell us this answer and this answer is inconsistent with that answer i think you are probably right in the case of it being data yeah i do not think that is right i am not sure actually i th i think i would mark it and and that it it is a region of the spectrum and they are actually using a region of the spectrum as the data well if it is an emission line data but if you both want not to mark it then fine do not mark it m if it is an emission line data would we put it in i would not but because it is a modifier of data but if it just said em but if it just said emission line we would it the emission line is strong the emission line data shows strong then i think it is the same actually i th i think it is data is not even needed it is inconsistent with the damped lyman alpha at more than the 99% or the damped lyman alpha feature if you put feature there rather than data then you would mark it 0 feature absolutely b but but i think data is equivalent if so from the perspective the named entity recognition task so i th i think th there there was also this one guideline of saying for example if something is sitting under a negation right the there was no damped l y alpha something then we then i think the convention was that we still that you still would mark that right so it is more like a s it is it is sort of like a quite literal task that is really like finding these kind of these types of strings rather than really referring to the underlying physical reality yeah which i mean sort of like if if you if you were to resolve these kind of cases in order to put them say in a database or so then you would probably be right in this case right but th given that the kind of thing is that that this named entity recogn task is is a much is a much more literal thing like really just fin finding these kind of strings right i think in this case i w i would say this is probably an entity yeah okay okay yeah that is think enough given that we can argue about it for 10 minutes it is probably not that clear cut yeah alright damped lyman alpha systems and it should not be either of them take it again but systems should be out it should be damped lyman alpha yeah in red whatever that is spectral feature and that should not be there at all kay you have done it again and i have done it twice is that clear enough yes right source type flat spectrum did we have a rule about this we were including modifiers including broad line quasars non broad line quasars as well so i think we should probably include the flat spectrum with your q with your quasar is a very different from steep spectrum yep that is true that is true we are 10% of the way there are we excellent just hitting the half an hour mark you have to s speed up continua we will go p could be here all day 0 gosh it will be here forever remarkably soft ionizing continua you are right though i think or or continuum see that i that is talking about the the flux of kin of ionizing photons rather then the continuum of that spectrum the absorbed continuum so i do not like that one yes oxygen abundance oxygen should not be there that is not observed yeah heavy element absorption lines i think should be there i am happy enough with that now what else is different blue shifted that is okay with me i do not care yeah you can have that as well 0 thank you there you go and that one next you are right star forming galaxies are distinct i think they are i do not know why i did that that is yeah derived i do not like that at all probably because you were doing 7000 of these an hour yeah could be that i was a bit sleepy lines from ions you can not tell the difference between a line from an ion and a line line from something else you mean that well you would know where they are in the well i guess yeah i dunno if it was lines from h 2 you would mark it yeah yeah yeah that is true that is true alright blue wing flux what were we going to do about flux does not say yeah but the feature itself is blue wing flux or if it was said blue wing feature we would mark feature yes it is the amount of stuff in the blue wing yeah so i am happy with that line peak i think that should be marked even though it is talking about increasing line peak it is also talking about increasing excess blue wing should actually be excess blue wing flux possibly do not know anyway ah i think line peak is something you can point to you can point to it but can you point to a line peak velocity shift well i y no but you can not you can not s also point to increa increasing blue wing yeah i do not think you can well you can point to blue wing flux cause you have your line and there is the blue wing flux what but if the line peak is increasingly shifted you would yeah i do not think that is a feature okay there is a system issue again so we should be consistent and keep it light right ye yes right neutral hydrogen gunn petersen absorption i think all of that is a spectral feature it is basically a way of saying the gunn petersen t it is a way of saying the gunn petersen trough though really it is a process is not it yeah which if you just said that it is gunn petersen absorption from neutral hydrogen rather than i if it was a t if it was hydrogen absorption well is not that a process you would mark the whole thing if it was hydrogen align you would so you should mark if it was or h beta absorption it is a marks the kind of spectral feature does not it it is a process is not it but so is h beta absorp emission as a process from h beta but it is still this is a process from neutral hydrogen i guess what i am meaning is neutral hydrogen should be in there and the fact that gunn peterson comes between it is just a pain well it i would not have any of it i think i think all of that is just that is process is not it i think i might agree with you cause this definitely should not be marked because that is a process not a yeah a and if that should not be marked then that should not be marked okay let us just cross everything out right blue shifted absorption i think it is a modifier of the thing and so it probably should be there 0 okay as in we are putting weak and strong absorption would count so i think blue shifted should yeah that is talking about the line is not it so that should be in yes okay you think yeah that is talking about strength rather than it is not the abundance of it or any derived property it is just the strength of the lines you do not think that it actually is abundance really in a way i am not sure but i guess perhaps it is i am not sure yeah i am not sure either yeah let us make a decision but i guess it could be abundance b 0 yeah either that if that should not be in neither should either of those yes that is true i think you probably should then cause we will put in our align strength yeah if it is a f i of a 2 line strength we would definitely put it in yeah that is right and i think that is what it is referring to even though it is not i it is not saying well but it 2 is not this an elemental abundance that you estimate actually using a number of lines is it it is not just one discrete line in the spectrum is it b a feature i am not sure its lines what do you mean well if you t it is an abundance i it is an element i guess but it is is it 2 is an ionic species and it will have a number of lines in the spectrum and you will estimate on the abundance all of the s species actually use the old lines but it is a strength rather than abundance i think that is still looking at the amount of flux coming out of the out of all the f e 2 lines rather than we have marked thing have we marked things like yeah i do not know if we have marked things like silicone one throughout in general we have not if unless it is specifically saying it is a line but i guess the question is just as specifically referred to a line they have not been if it is yeah yeah yeah and i maybe it is not clear enough to mark yeah let us not mark it then yeah if we do not mark it though we definitely should not mark these 2 should we well line narrow line if it says it f e 2 line strength then we would mark it cause you are talking about the line of it rather than the ev element do you agree with that i think so yeah if that is true then their leaving out the word line i do not should mean that it should not be marked the word line should be in there but or 0 well what is new but i mean we know what they mean like yeah i think they mean l i think they mean the line strength rather than the f e 2 abundance okay yeah let us leave it in well then have it in i think that is what they probably mean but it is just not very clear yeah yeah okay next b s bloated star that is a 0 is that what that means yeah 0 yeah okay take out line and that is just the wrong seyfert 2 that is just the wrong color as is that 0 yep you are right i think you were right there radio loud counts yeah yep you are right yeah and you are right there as well that is a physical process yeah okay that counts yes that was one i was not sure about cause infrared yeah and if it was mid infrar if it was you would put it in yeah that is just the wrong na that is just this should be a source name yeah the and this should not be should it i do not know w m m does those count as modifiers active we definitely include active yes i guess the problem is due to what does that m mean so i presumed it what does that mean it is a k kind of elliptical is it a e 2 is a kind of elliptical 0 yeah yeah yeah yeah what i do not know what the j means is it yeah okay right cause that is one i just did not know what it i thought it was a catalog h alpha i think should be marked yeah those can does that not mean a a broad band detection and does that count sorry what is the i can not see h alpha detection yeah you are still detecting a line even if you are detecting it from broad band filters but do not we say we do not do that ah i am right look broad band do not include modifiers of regions or systems e g broad line region you are right region systems that is why i was not doing it and now align nebulae right okay we will just go back and change those g ah look at that you are right okay where was it started here why did it so we mark we have got nebulae marked here yeah but b modifiers of regions or systems is the 0 yeah okay modifiers with them which is give a yell if you see one yeah we could always change this if we think we are right rather than going back through and so damped lyman alpha absorbers should not be in there based on this but we could change this rule rather than changing all those things but then i am i i p i probably use that rule so half the time and just forgotten to use at other times what is the what was the appropriate thing to do at this point so just about changing rules i mean in a sense you also want to make sure that the annotation that that they the agreements that you arrive on today that they are consistent with what you did before right so i mean this really only displays th those cases where you disagreed right right but if you sorta like change a rule now on the fly then that might be then that might b create inconsistencies with the right yeah yep yeah cause you might have followed that rule yeah yes i i am sure i have followed that rule sometimes and just forgotten right yeah so let us take that out alright lyman alpha forest here yeah but lyman alpha forest should be in here because it is not talking about m it is not modified yeah that is fine damped lyman alpha systems damped lyman alpha data ah we are back to damped lyman alpha data data i think we should keep in okay because it is would be the same as feature i or spec spectrum i do i still do not think that goes in i think data is the same as spectrum cause the data is a spec m but yeah i still do not like it but final view bob i do not have passionate feelings i would not i think now probably okay let us take that out and this one comes out as well yep okay so we want nothing yeah just cross those out there did not it yeah right oops we are there right excellent so what were we looking at this page for anyway it was for something else h alpha detection h alpha detection broad band detections is in do not include but i would not is h alpha broad brand well h l was a line there really is not it it is a line so whether you detect it 0 so it would be a narrow band detection a narrow band imaging detection yeah alright good yeah i think so h alpha emitters are not a distinct class of source i do not think no they are not line just out of curiosity this narrow and broad band that that refers to the type of spectrogram that you have like t on the type of filter or is it 0 okay yeah exactly that yeah yeah okay yeah exactly that but i guess if you are picking out a spectral feature even with a broad band or narrow band then it is still a spectral feat feature if you are picking out a line yeah okay what however you pick it out yep line on its own i think there is going to be a lot of those which makes life simpler okay yeah right this is another systems thing yep absorption profiles i think that i think the whole thing should actually be marked even this complex okay how far should we go yeah no comple just absorption per yeah absorption profiles i will go for why not lyman alpha forest line blanketing or lyman alpha forest line yeah take out the blanketing has this ah right is it a system yep v l b a is an instrument 0 is it yeah v l b i is a net it is it is a v l b i is it is a technique is a network but is it technique yeah it is not a yeah yes the network is an instrument though is not it v what is it is called something else is not it it the v 0 v l b very long baseline array it is e v n is not it yeah it is called a v l b a v l b a if it had an a on the end it would be the ne instrument this is well it v l b i network image so do they mean the v l b a is not all of this is an instrument if you have it all is not it european v l b i net is it in it it is an intstru group instrument not a research group yes cause it ta it takes an image i think so yeah so 0 but then a m research group could take an image yeah yeah okay let us 0 how much of modifiers are we putting in but it is only supposed to be proper names but i do not which it is i think yeah is that so this whole thing is an instrument you say from one6 or from european that is what i think 0 0 i think it is s s s starting with eu european i think or just v l b a he is using capitals 0 i see i see but s yeah okay so is this like it is a subset of the v l b a yes huh just in europe right but it is actually merlin and all the i international logs in europe all hooked up into one instrument basically cool yeah okay right 0 that is a source name you are right that is just broad band is not it broad line emission yeah that is just so that should not be marked radio loud objects it is not ve it is not a m mod it is not an original system m we say something about objects and i think it is that we do not use it anything ending in object we do not include yep yeah ye so none of those yep now we have both marked line ratios here yeah but we should not have done and that is the same so that is it yeah continuum yeah that is fair enough it is certainly not a source name and there it is different because you are talking about the ionizing continuum which is a pre yeah that means that is a proc it is a process or it is a it is a type of photons that is not the continuum you are looking at yeah i think you can point to line pairs sure you can yep and that should not be in there nope neither should that yep scribble away excellent you are right there that is all one big spectral feature and nebula should not be marked have we agreed on that what do we do back here we only agreed that so far we have only agreed that we can not include spectral features modifying nebula but i do not see yet where it is written down that you can not mark nebula what did we do back here we did mark nebula yes yeah it was things that were not distinct like yeah yeah but the see there is so many different kinds of nebula yeah i think is why i was not doing it yeah it is a difficult one but if we are going to stick to it let us stick to it yeah if we are going to have them let us have them the what is different the 0 yeah do not mind and i think we need the i think we would put stop putting the in we could get confused and you are right there you are right there source type 0 yeah line blanketing line blanketing you think y sh i no i do not think i did i we had line blanketing just now and we included it so that yeah i think we sh did we did you i thought it was a process and that it it was not included ah where was it we did just have it do not know yeah it was not that far back was it do not think n lyman f forest line blanket we took blanketing out no it was not that far back line yeah we took blanketing out so i do not think that should be in yeah and that is all the same is that it yeah that is a source 9 yes is not it yes it is yeah red and blue components i think you are right there as well yeah yeah i think i am right really yeah i think i in the same way that you can point to the soft x rays or or the hard x rays you can point to the red and the 0 yeah well i would argue about see because i think that i mean th that you only extract that after you actually model a sp spectrum do not you yeah the soft excess you can definitely point to on an x ray thing you kn you know if there is one there or not you could say that is that so yeah you are saying you would not know it was soft unless you would but have a component though as such w 0 yeah i see what but we are talking about the c the continuum though if you have a galaxy spectrum though you can say there is the blue component there is the red component to the spectrum yeah g c 0 i see what you mean i like it comes from adding 2 different things together yeah that is that is what i am thinking that i can see that yeah it is actually really after you actually model the s a spectrum not just actually looking at the spectrum but results from spectral yes yeah you think give that for red and blue components but i would not probably give that for soft component because a soft excess is a i mean that is an x ray thing y like a break you say 0 look there is but if it said red or blue excess rather than red or blue component i guess the problem with yeah yeah but component it is m means it is an element actually in the model though yeah yeah i would take out red and blue okay let us which means maybe we should take out soft but it is such a basic sort of you look at a spectrum and you say that is a a soft excess it is a soft well the excesses yeah yeah but the component is not it is just a t if you modeled it with 2 parts one that had a a ha a harder and softer spectrum hubble in hubble deep field south yeah yeah yeah that is probably true yeah hubble and hubble deep sent to us i did not include it although it does apply to the telescope i think i would yeah but yeah yeah let us keep it in so should w did we have a soft component earlier yes so we sh should kill it yeah yeah anyone remember when no i i think actually pretty early on i would have thought let us start at the beginning yeah there it is 0 excellent right hubble alright no wait the top one i think you should include possibly with flux as well though d yeah okay yeah that is fine i am happy with all that and then yes the whole thing yeah well i said radio galaxies now what did we p we say about acronyms where part of it was useful yeah that counts do we ha did we s make a decision about radio galaxies cause i think they are discussed as a separate source type are not they where are they radio galaxies only just i interesting because on the hour it yeah it hides that yeah yeah you are right but i do not think we should mark high red shift in that yeah yeah no they are just red shi but yes no it is yeah wh what did we say about acronyms where where part of it is useful i think you are supposed to mark the whole thing are not you yes i think you are yeah so you are right seyfert one8 and one9 galaxies it is a sub classification of seyfert is would make a s study seyfert 18s you would not say we are talking about yes well people do though do not they 0 do they i mean it is pretty s stupid but they do i think they probably are you are right yeah yeah i think so inseparate yeah that is fine and it is just the and that annoys mission line feature we are going to include yep yeah galaxy and galaxy formation does not count galaxy when it is a process yes and yes that counts ah now this is one where it should be this one but what if you would un if these are doubly underlined but in has it just plotted the top color 0 was it actually possible to doubly underline things yes yeah i do not know wh which one it would display then okay because what we want here let us just mark what we want and mark that but with also broad line right but i am on the yeah i can not write i i actually did not know that it was possible to have these so you you you allowed these kind of embedded annotations we changed it so that you could yeah yeah because quite often an object class is defined by a spectral feature right okay okay like broad line radio galaxies yeah broader lines i think yeah i do not think that should go in do not mind list the wrong wrong color for a few things 0 up here 0 it is all here hyper luminous galaxy if you are having ultra loom this early on then i think you have to have here yeah this is just a color issue is it or is it 0 right and q s 0 is not yeah you are right ye yeah they should all be and that one yep i s m it is diffuse so it probably should not be in there the i s m is not a source type is it 0 no i do not think so what we doing about nebula again i have forgotten we are now including nebula are not we okay yeah what have we done features features yep flat spectrum radio quasars strong drop in the continuum i think you are right there okay nope i think you are right again that is just the place yep we are not doing emission line objects we are not doing emission line when it is a modifier of objects are we 0 no we are not doing that either you are right the question is are emission line objects a separate class of source i think they are no but t y are you arguing not to have anything with object in it though they are not are they yeah yes you are right so there goes yeah anything to do with objects so nothing and seyfert galaxies w should be one you are right there yeah yes i got 370 that is pretty good that is nearly a 3rd and you s speed it up as well i think so
okay see and marks okay did you guys actually have sort of interaction or discussions while you were doing the annotation did you have had stages of clarification or i suppose you did right at the beginning we did we did a training set did not we in then compared to see yeah we did 2 of those you we probably did i think we did 2 training sets and then we had at least one meeting with you yeah we talked about through and we decided on things and we did all the rest of them separately yeah so did you feel there was some some kind of some process of convergence like that initially had quite different ideas about the phrase types and and then eventually you came up with some kind of rules that you set up between the 2 of you or i do not know but okay i mean i thought we had basically the same ideas i do not remember ever having strong arguments about what should be in what group or it was just the rules about the thing of it really yeah we and what counted as for the spectral features it was more really really what counted as a spectral feature we had a long discussion about that but i do not remember sort of arguing from different sides and converging just sort of piecing out what would come up and agreeing what we would do and we had a manual which we have not got yet do you think we get a copy would that be useful it could be we are allowed to leave the meeting now it has been a long time since we have done this can we get ben to put us out one yeah i think so okay yeah yeah yes now we are moving on the headphones do you reckon ben has seen we did say it he has had it certainly yeah yeah yeah yeah otherwise we can go on to our system and get it now he has gone yes there is a cool little countdown it lets you know exactly how long you have been meeting excellent 0 on top we should have these things in our area now we do not have high tank we do not know how little work we did well i guess it is actually telescopes but that is different to those things they are hardly in our areas they have got a conference thing have not they in the atc yeah that is right although it is not actually used a lot of often these days i think i had to fly to germany to do a teleconference the same as you for the eso interview and they fly you to germany and put you on a 4 way teleconference with me people in chile and had they asked we could have done it fine at atc right i am going to go to germany for the day i have not got that far it is a very strange interview feeling as well because you can not see them any middle of the body language while you are giving your talk because they just show usually they have a camera on you and a camera on them but during the talk part they have a camera on i believe them because i could see that guy reading a newspaper halfway through my talk and then they had a camera on showing what my slides were and so you forget that they can see you at all and so when all of that was over they were answering me questions and the view switched again and i realized i was sitting there in the interview going and mine was different again it was a 4 way split screen with me and 3 other people and it just stayed like that and i had the talk on the laptop in front of me and they had the talk on their laptops and i had to tell them when to use the button to turn the page and you can not say looking over here if you see towards the top left of the image you are just you know just and luckily olivia had warned me it might be complicated and so i had something without very many not little arrows flying in and things because that would just make it really difficult but i practice the talk you are standing up in front of it and pointing to things and you are sitting down in front of it and you could see yourself but not only get you see yourself it will see yourself bounce back 2 seconds later by the time the signal had gone to chile in fact it is really strange so you were like 0 did i just do that and then you are reacting to what you did a while ago that is a really daft situation   great we can start writing about it shall we dive in in the interim yes yes continuing flux i will continue    yes flux on its own would not be a spectacle feature be a spectacle feature i think it should probably just be continuing if it was continuum luminosity you probably would not no you would not do i think i am no i think i am working out who is tough and bottom yeah i am happy enough with that i do not see a strong way about it i actually have not really thought about like marking or not marking who is top and whose bottom i think maybe that would make sense for you guys to know i do not know i think we have worked then said he left it out on purpose which is recent yes and i am pretty sure i am bottom anyway i am pretty sure i am tough so even on bottom we can tell because i would fight for lyme being a respectful feature as well right yeah i think that is probably right as well it is a bit hard to mark on this let us do that okay next so sorry just for the convention you are marking which annotation you think is the right one yes and if neither then we will have to put something else okay so here i am missing soft component on the bottom i think that i will probably right to soft component is a if you get line i get soft component you think sorry i 0 what if you do i should not intervene probably but no good well is not it that if it is a region of the spectrum that you can point at it then it is a spectral feature and that is not you can point to a soft component you think yeah okay all right it is a big bump safer than a soft bit okay okay there was a feature part of spectral feature i think you will look there as well yeah i am not fast about that it is not just absorption but it is not just absorption it is actually something in the absorption if it was a a dip in absorption or a a lack of absorption you would put it in because we said we were put describing words yeah that is the thing you point to and this is a physical mechanism so yeah i would say 2 down 250 excellent that is 2 that is definitely 2 you are right ah this one with the equivalent width i think you are right that we were not going to mark the equivalent width but we were going to mark the lines i think that is true yeah all right what are we missing broadline yeah that is true you get that and nebula there is a source type i do not remember what we were doing with nebula we were not doing like h 2 regions and stuff right i can not remember should we see when we see when the manual comes so let us come back to that one yes i thought i know what we are doing about that either we were doing descriptions that made things separate classes in which case i would argue for elliptical thing 0 my god i have just gone mad with the underlining here yes yeah over breaking the power law index i think that is probably a you can point to it yeah that is the thing but you would not know it was a yeah it is something you have derived the power of the index is something you deserve a break in a spectrum is something you can point out so what is a break in a power of index quite offensive feature because in this spectrum it does that and then does that if it does that and does that yeah that is where it breaks slight depression of the continuum near the lyman limit i think you are right there as well and if i did it again i would say slight depression of the continuum and possibly well you can see both this slight depression and the lyman limit but we are supposed to say descriptive words of the features yeah if it was absorption at h alpha that would all be one or absorption at 5000 nanometers would all be one anyway yeah but they would be the same at a certain point they would both be the same spectral feature whereas here there is 2 spectral features there is a lyman limit which you can see and then there is a slight depression near it yeah i think you are right it is near rather than at it is much yeah it is not do you have a sense about that you want to split that one then are you into 2 yeah yeah i would agree with that i think yeah excellent it is good blood i did yeah okay absorption that i did not mark because it is the physical process of absorption yes and you are like that as well the thing i think it was more awakeness would there be other cases where you would actually mark an absorption or yeah if it was there is an absorption feature or absorption is seen at the spectrum at this wavelength but when you say for example the quasar is absorbed that just means the quasar is behind a bunch of stuff cheers thanks so that is describing something physically rather than describing the spectrum itself okay thank you thank you there is no steep soft component below 2 kv i do not remember what we were going to do about things that were not there it is not something you can point to you could point to it if it were there yes you could i tend to miss out things before too long but if it had been there you would have marked it as a yeah yes yeah should we go back to number 5 is that the nebula was it the nebula yeah what are we saying about nebula source types no it may it counts does not it i think it does right we were not matching h 2 regions because it was a region i think was the yeah well i meant for that line again that is line ratios but i remember we were not going to mark line ratios but we were going to mark here where you have got equivalent width of h beta or if it is a but ratios different line and line ratios is modifying ratios is not it it is not talking about specific lines a line ratio is a thing yeah because i have not actually listed explicitly on that you are not going to include it right do not include line ratios after abundances is that the value or the word 0 i see what you mean do not it yeah you would not include it property you would not include abundances or line strengths no yeah you would not include line in that okay i do not think 0 0 i see what you are doing you are circling the one to keep damped lime and alpha absorbers i think that is a spectral feature even though it is you would not mark the source type 0 sorry i am here so can i just ask now you just aligned sorry you circled the word in the other line which did not yes because we do not want it underlined right sorry 0 i see okay yeah right damp live now see again these are source types i mean it is not a source type but it is also a but damline and alpha absorberds are physical things not spectral features but you also absorb them you are observed by their spectral feature what are we doing for things broad absorption line quasar for example we were marking the broad absorption line as well as board absorption line so i think it should be the same as that if it is defined by a spectral feature we should mark it but you would not be able to point to something in a spectrum and say that is a damp line and alpha absorber unless you would you could point to damp lim and alpha though because it says yeah spectral features within are referring to a type of source e g balin valquazer but we would not say absorbers were a type of source not a specific type of source but i think still the spectral feature counts even though it is a modifier or something okay i am not certain about that but i what do you reckon there  well i mean you can look up this this spectrum and spots that limeon alpha has been damped but that is a spectral feature it is a potential beauty do not with damplam and alpha observers you see them a variety of places along the line of sight so you have to know 0 yeah that is true how does it work i do not know what if you look at a quasar and you see a bunch of if you got a bunch of clouds of gas in the way you can see these things but you would not be able to point at one of them and say 0 that is a dense yeah yeah yeah they are going to be different red shifts but that does not mean that it is you can still say that is damplam and alpha and that is damp line enough i do not know how they do that yeah but you are guessing in a way though are not you so but is not that always the case of something that is not particularly well no but you see them in all sorts of different red shifts it is like the lyman alpha forest sort of and i am not certain i would mark that that is a tricky one certainly if it was some other spectral feature and then absorbers would we mark it no i would not because it is they are physical things not spectral features you can not point at something on a spectrum and say that is definitely a damped lyman alpha and i guess it is because they are modifiers of this source type and we would not mark that source type but we include modifiers of source type you would mark we would not mark absorbers we are not mark the absorbers if it was a damped lima alpha quasar then we would mark quasar and we would mark damp and alpha right well yeah it was more absorption like quasor would mark it yeah so it is just i guess whether dampedlam and alpha is a spectral feature in itself which i would probably that is a tricky one say it was but then i have never looked at one i guess it is okay and that it is altering the spectrum is not it i mean it is change in this spectrum it does not have to be something that is specific we say a big blue bum or a soft or a continuum and we include those but we were not going to include descriptions of spectral features that were based on fitting that is true we have included power law though have we no we included steep soft components sorry and here we included breaking the power law because of the brake steep soft component yeah break in the parallel is something i am not certain of steep soft component is something you can point at in a spectrum and say there it is there is still some degree of fitting in that it is scary yeah you know what is steep and what is shallow it is tricky let us have that for now if we change our mind later when we go through we can always come back to it and say again i would say this is a physical process and i was back on the feature yeah yeah and absorption again yeah what did we get different here i do not have k star that i should do yeah that one and this one here we were including feature within spectral future wait right okay okay what is wrong with friday chalfa i think i just missed it right it is not as if it is a although it is called off maximum it is still the line within it yeah okay all is easy silicon 2 is an element rather than the in this context rather than the line these are the lines i guess what you if viya there was not in there then you would have it silicon 2 lines at but without with viyaa i think that means silicon 2 derived from these 2 creatures yeah i think so too that that is actually an ionic species is not it yeah that is true a spectral feature so on its own yeah that is true limeon alpha forest clouds 0 no we are back to it again limeon alpha forest you can point to on the spectrum that is true but lyman alpha forest clouds are source types we are not marking so we have not basically we just have not got a rule for spectral features within referring to types of source when we do not mark the source yeah but we can just be consistent so are we marking h 2 and h 2 regions for example and i do not think we are because that is not a spectral feature yeah but i guess it is not defined by a spectral feature though h 2 region whereas lamin alpha forest is defined by the definition of lamin alpha forest clouds has certainly have a lyman alpha forests but saying that is not the same as saying we have seen that in a spectrum whereas a broadline quasar someone has looked at it and i have seen a broad line but if you are discussing lyman alpha forest clouds they could just be discussing the physical object which we are not marking why are not you marking it then because they were not i do not know i do not think we were marking diffused emission or yeah huh it would not count as a source type or well that is what i am wondering really i remember not marking nebula or clouds or yeah but this is this was one species of cloud it is a particular species of cloud not just a general cloud is not it so is not that different is not that different it is a modifier of clouds but i do not think if we are including the yeah i think if we are not including nebula and clouds we can not include i am saying maybe we should be including nebula and clouds perhaps we should have done but we have not done the whole thing okay i think maybe we just need to put i do not include diffuse emission but then we still have to decide if we do not enable the source what do we do about the spectral features that define that source if we have for example broad absorption line object we mark that we mark board absorption line in that that is because we have to know it is a broad absorption line object we have seen it but to know this is a lyman alpha forest cloud we have seen lyman alpha forest but it is in the spectrum of another object though it is not the spectrum of the but it is still a spectral feature even if it is not it might be a spectral feature not in the cloud but it is a spectral feature in the quasar that is true and he could point at it that is true and say that is let us keep yeah okay yeah okay so lemon off a forest again and that definitely is a spectral feature on its own then because it does not see forest clouds each helium 2 optical depth i think that is an element of it yeah that is derived 0 we marked the same lines excellent what have we done differently you have got line brightness temperatures it is a derived property of the line we are going to have a lot of these yeah we are and we were not using line what we did not do before line ratio we were not doing yeah i do not think line brightness temperatures counts because it is not talking about a specific line yeah so yeah yeah yeah i do not think that is line feature that is right sorry can we just go back one page did you resolve the the different segmentations like the main problem was there is only one difference yeah 0 sorry i thought it was a problem of like one half of like one having underlined the entire 0 sorry no i said okay sorry guys quite implicitly yeah it is it is it that one is his name damp lyman alpha again systems and then that is a data that is a modifier of data but if you said i mean that is if you said the spectral data the continuum spectrum i really do not think that counts but if it said damp line and alpha spectrum you would mark damp lime and alpha because it is in the spectrum and the data is equivalent to spectrum i think just because it has got a spectral feature in the phrase you would not for example when we were saying silicon 2 levels we did not mark silicon 2 that has got nothing to do with the spectrum but if it is saying silicon 2 lines but what this actually means is we have made some measurements based on damped lyman alpha measurements and they tell us this answer and this answer is in i think you are probably right in the case of it being data yeah i do not think that is right  i am not sure actually i think i would mark it in the it it is a region of the spectrum and they are actually used the spectrum and they are actually using a region of the spectrum as the data if it said emission line data but if you both want not to mark it then fine do not mark it if it is an emission line data would we put it in i would not but if it just said but if it just said emission line we would the emission line is strong the emission line data shows strong yeah yeah then i think it is the same actually much i think it is data is not even needed it is inconsistent with a damp climate alpha at more than 99% or a dump number of feature you put feature there rather than data then you would mark it no feature absolutely but i think data is the equivalent so from the perspective the named anti recognition task so i think there was also this one guideline of saying for example of something is sitting under a negation right that there was no damned l y alpha something then we then i think the convention was that we still that you still would mark that right so it is more like it is it is sort of like a quite literal task that is really like finding these kind of these types of strings rather than really referring to the underlying physical reality which i mean sort of like if you were to resolve these kind of cases in order to put them say in a database or so then you would probably be right in this case right but given that the kind of thing is that this named anti directing tash is a much it is a much more literal thing like really just finding these kind of strings i think in this case i would say this is probably an entity okay given that we can argue about it for 10 minutes probably not like a cut right demp lyman alpha systems it should not be either of them it should be damped lime and alpha in red whatever that is a speckful feature and that should not be there at all okay i have done it twice is that clear enough yes all right source type did we have a rule about this we were including modifiers we including boardline queries broadline quasars non broadline quasars as well so i think we should probably agree the flat spectrum radio quasars are very different from a steep spectrum that is true 10% of the way there are we just hitting the half an hour mark continua speed up we will be here all day it will be forever mercury is soft ionizing continuum you like that i think see that is talking about the flux of ionizing photons rather than the the absorb continuum of that spectrum yes i do not want that one oxygen should not do that is not upset heavy element absorption that is i think should be i think should be happy enough with that what else is different blue shifted that is okay with me okay yeah you can have that as well i can get that in that one next you write star bombing galaxies so distinct i do not know why i did that i do not like that at all probably because you were doing 7000 of these yeah i could not believe that i would have that lines from ions  you can not tell the difference between a line from an ion or line from something else not well you know where they are in the well i guess yeah i do not if it was lines from h 2 yeah yeah that is true that is true all right blue wing flux what are we going to do about flux the feature it does not say the feature itself is blue wing flux or if it was a blue wing feature would mark feature yes it is the amount of stuff in the blue wing line peak i think that should be marked even though it is talking about increasing line peak it is also doing my increasing excess blue wing should actually excess blue wing flux i think i think i think line peak is something you can point to it but can you point to a line peak velocity shift no but you can not also point to increasing blue wing well you can point to blue wing flaps because you have your line and there is the blue wing flux but if a line peak is increasingly shifted yeah i have not answered for each okay there is a system issue again so we should be consistent and keep it all right yeah nuclear hydrogen gunpowder so we can not neutral hydrogen gun petersetopin i think all of that is the spectrum feature it is basically a way of saying the gun petersen it is a way of saying the gun petersen trough which if you just said that it is gun petersen absorption is that a process if it was a hydrogen absorption it would mark the whole thing there is a hydrogen line you would so you should mark if it was or h beta absorption it marks the kind of specter feature does not it it is the process is not it but so is h beta emission it is a process from h beta but it is still this is a process from neutral hydrogen i guess what i am meaning is neutral hydrogen should be in there and the fact that gung peterson comes between it it is just a pain well i would not have any of it i think i think all of that is just the description of the process i think i might agree with you because this definitely should not be marked because that is a process now yeah and if that should not be marked then that should not be marked okay blue shift of absorption i think there is a modify of the thing that probably should be there okay as an important strong absorption would count so i think blue shift it should that is talking about the line is not it so that should be yes okay you think yeah it is talking about that iron 2 strength rather than it is not the abundance of it or any derived property it is just the strength of the lines of the lines you do not think that it actually is abundance really in a way i am not sure but i guess perhaps it is i am not sure yeah i am not sure either let us make a decision i guess it could be abundant well yeah if that should not be in neither should either of those yes that is true i think it probably should then because we will put narrow line strength if it said every 2 line strength we would definitely put it in yeah that is right and i think that is what it is referring to even though it is not it is not saying well but it is not this an elemental abundance that you estimate actually using a number of lines it is not just one discrete line in the spectrum is it i think it is in the lines it is an abundance it is an element i guess but it is 2 is an ionic species and it will have a number of lines in the spectrum and you will estimate the abundance of the species that is using all the lines but it says strength rather than abundance i think that is still looking at the amount of flux coming out of all the 2 lines rather than with marked things have we marked things like yeah i do not know if we have marked things like silicon one throughout in general we have not if unless it is specifically saying it is a line basically saying it is a line yeah but i guess the question is does this specifically refer to a line maybe it is not clear enough to map it is not marking it if we do not mark it though we definitely should not mark these 2 well and if that is line narrow line if it said at f e2 line strength then we would mark it because you are talking about the line of it rather than in the element do you agree with that i think so if that is true then they are leaving out the word line i do not think should mean that it should not be marked the word line should be in there we know what they mean right yeah i think they mean i think they mean the line strength rather than the f e2 abundance okay well then have it in that is what they probably read yeah yeah okay yes bloated star 0 is that what that means 0 okay take out now and that is just the one 0 color as is that your rod your right your leg counts yep yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah here and you are right there as well just use a bit of process back out yes that was one i was not sure about because it would be fern for red yeah and if it was you lurks you would put it in that is just the one knit this should be a source name and this should not be i do not know does those count as modifiers active we definitely include active yes i guess the problem is g 2 what does that mean i have assumed it kind of elliptical is it 0 yeah yeah i do not know what the j means okay right is this one i just did not know i thought it was the catalog h alpha i think it should be not those can does that not mean a broadband detection and does that count sorry it is the h alpha detection yeah you are still detecting the line even if you are detecting it from broadband filters but do not we say we do not do that ah i am right look do not include modifiers of regions or systems e g broadline region you are right systems that is why i was not doing it and narrow line nebula okay we just go back and change this you are right okay where was it it started here what is it we have got nebula marked here yeah but modifiers of regions of systems is the could be yellow if you see one yeah we could always change this if we think we are right rather than going back through so damped limelphor absorbers should not be in there based on this but we could change this rule rather than changing all those things but then what is the appropriate thing to do at this point i probably use that rules half the time and just forgotten to use it at the times just about changing rules i mean in a sense you also want to make to make sure that the annotations that the agreements that you arrive on today that they are consistent with what you did before right so well i mean this really only displace those cases we disagreed but if you saw like change a rule now on the flight and that might be then that might create inconsistence yes i am sure i followed that all sometimes and just forgotten so let us take that out the lamanalpa forest here yeah but lamin alpha forest should be in here because it is not talking about it it is not modified yeah that is fine damp line and alpha systems 0 we are back to damp and alpha data data data i think we should keep in okay okay because it is it is the same as feature i do not think data is the same as spectrum but the data is a spectrum yeah i still do not like it but final viewable i do not have passion i would not i think now probably okay and this one comes out as well one comes out as well okay so we want yeah just cross those out yeah yep alright so what were we are there so what were we looking at this page for anyway hl for detection hl for detection broadband detections but i would not is hlf a good line there is so whether you detect so it would be a narrowband detection yeah narrow band imaging detection all right good i think so hr for emitters are not a distinct class of source i do not think no they are not 9 just sort of curiously this narrow and broad pen that refers to the type of spectrogram that you have like on the type of filter or is it yeah exactly that yeah exactly that but i guess if you are picking out a spectrogram that you have that you are picking out a spectrogram i guess if you are picking out a spectral feature even with a broadband or not a bad one it is still a speck for feature if you are picking out a line yeah however you pick it out yeah line helps i do not know line i do not know line so i think it will be a lot of those which makes left simple okay right right this is another system this is another system is thing yeah absorption profiles i think that the whole thing should actually be marked you think it is complex how far should be go complex just absorption profiles yeah absorption profiles are different i know lamanalfa forest line blanketing or like man off of forestland blanketing yeah take out the blanket is it is it a system yep 0 is it now the vlbi is a network what is it the idea is an instrument it is a technique yeah the network is an instrument though it is called something else is not it very long baseline array yeah it is a if you have an a on the end it would be the instrument this is well vlbi network image so do they mean the vlba is not all of this is an instrument if you have it all is not it european vlbi net it is an instrument not a research group yes it takes an image 0 but they do not research group is taking it okay let us how much of modifiers are we putting in it is only supposed to be proper names but i do not which it is i think so this whole thing is an instrument you say from one6 or from european i think it is or just from the obe starting with europe pacian i think 0 i see i see yeah so is this like it is a subset of the vlba yes just in europe there is actually merlin and all the international analogs in europe all hooked up into one instrument basically okay that is a source name that is just broadband is not it broadband is not it yeah that is what i should not be marked radio allowed objects it is not radio it is not a modern kind of a regional system we say something about objects and i think it is that we do not anything ending an object we do not yeah so none of those now we have both marked line ratios here yeah but we should not have done that is the same set yeah okay yeah that is far enough it is certainly not a source name and there it is different because you are talking about the ionizing continuum yeah that means which is a it is a process or it is a it is a type of photons that is not the continuum you are looking at maybe you can point to line to place true yeah it should not be nope you are going to show that yeah you are right there it is all one big spectral feature and nebula should not be marked have we agreed on that we only agreed that so far we have only agreed that we can not include spectral features modifying nebula but i do not see yet where it is written down that you can not mark nebula we did mark nebula yes it was things that were not distinct like yeah but see there is so many different kinds of nebula i think is why i was not doing it  yeah it is a difficult one i am going to stick to a less stick to happen that is happen that is happened the 0 yeah  do not mind stop in the you could get yeah yeah right you are right line blanketing i know i do not know i do not ever do this we had line blanketing just now and we included it i think it was did you i thought it was a process and it was not included where was it we did just have it yeah it was not that far back is it limon forest line blanket we took blanking out yeah we took blanking out yeah that is awesome that is awesome yeah that is a source yes yes it is red and blue components i think you might know as well i think you might know as well yeah you could say it yeah i think i might really yeah i think in the same way that you can point to the soft x rays or the hard x rays you can point to the red and the well i would argue about that you see because i think that you only extract that after you actually model a specter do not you the soft excess you can definitely point to in an x ray thing and you know if there is one there or not say that that so you are saying you would not know it was soft unless you yeah we are talking about the continuum though if you have a galaxy spectrum you can say there is the blue component there is the red component to the spectrum 0 i see what you mean like it comes from adding 2 different things together yeah that is what i am thinking i can see that yeah it is actually really how to actually model the spectrum not just looking at a spectrum yes i give that for red and blue components but i would not probably give that for soft components because a soft excess is a i mean that is an x ray thing like a break you say but if it said red or blue excess rather than red or blue components yeah but a component it means it is an element actually in a model right yeah i would take out red and blue which means maybe we should take out soft well it is such a basic sort of you look at a spectrum and you say that is a soft excess it is a soft the excess is yeah but on the if you modeled it with 2 parts one that had a opponent is not a hard and soft spectrum hubble and hubble deepfield south  huffle and hubble deep south i did not include it although it does apply to the task i think i would yeah yeah yeah so did we have a soft component earlier yes yeah yeah anyone remember when no i think actually pretty early on i would have thought it is at the beginning there is excellent excellent no mind hubble no alright the top one i think you should include possibly with flux as well yeah okay yeah that is fine i am happy with all and then yes okay yeah yeah okay okay hi z radio galaxies now what did we say about acronyms where part of it was useful do we make a decision about high z radio graphics because i think they are discussed as a separate source type are not they well are they only just interesting because they are at yeah but i do not think we should mark high head shift in that yeah the argument is yes what do we say about acronyms where part of it is useful i think you are supposed to mark the whole thing right yes i think you are so you are right seaput one8 and one9 galaxies there is a subclassification of seaford no one would make us you would not say we are talking about c for one8s well people do though do not they it is pretty stupid i think they probably are yeah it is just the answer it is a nice feature we are going to include galaxy and galaxy formation does not and ah now this is one yes that counts but it should be this one but what have you done if these are doubly underlined has it just plotted the top color 0 was it actually possible to double the underlined things yes yeah  i do not know which one it would display then okay because what we want demont here let us just mark what we want and not that but we have also a boardline i can not it is i should know that what is possible to have this so you allowed this kind of abettate adaptations right because quite often an object class is defined by a spectral feature okay like borderline radio galaxies borderlines yeah i do not think that should go in do not mind one color for a few things 0 it is right here hyperlumous galaxy if you are having ultralumous yeah then you have to have hyperlimin so yeah this is just a color issue is it 0 right and so is not yeah you are right yeah yeah yeah yes ism it is the piece so it probably should not be in there the ism is not a source type no i do not mean so what are we doing about nebula again i forgot him we are now including nebula are not we okay features and that is maybe yes it is a strong drop in the continuum right there okay i think you are right again that is just the place yeah we are not doing emission line objects and we are not doing mission line when it is a modified of objects are we 0 no we are not doing that either you are right the question is are mission line objects a separate class of source i think they are no and you are arguing not to have anything with object in it then yeah yes you are right so that goes yeah anything in the other objects and super galaxies should be one here right there yes we have got to be 70 that is pretty good that is only a 3rd and you are speedy up as well i think so