When listening to the papers which have been presented I was struck by the feeling that much more effort is being devoted to the problems of the acquisition and handling of vast quantities of data than to the evaluation and presentation of the data, a situation which has in the past applied to spectroscopic data as well. The list of Data Centers which Dr. Jaschek presented attests to the efforts now underway to collect data. I would therefore urge strenuous attempts to critically evaluate collections of data whenever such evaluation is meaningful and feasible. I believe that many of our colleagues expect us to tell them a ‘best’ value for any particular datum, with, if possible, an indication of whether it is considered trustworthy (by a probable error or a quality index). I believe that this principle of giving the best representative values underlies much of the success of C. W. Allen’s book Astrophysical Quantities as well as of compilations such as the National Bureau of Standards spectroscopic publications. I would also emphasize the continuing value of bibliographies, at least in cases when the original data are published in widely scattered articles and until the publication of a comprehensive compilation. I believe that good bibliographies on topics of special interest could go far to meeting the casual needs of many users of our data.

This report summarises the discussions on the topics of the five invited papers, and on other matters of general interest that were raised by the contributed papers. The principal headings are: standards for datafiles; the influence of acquisition and processing techniques; the critical evaluation of data; the designation of astronomical objects; the distribution of data; survey of facilities; the future role of data centres; and recommendations on IAU activities.