UCD problem in SSA/SpectrumDM

[Christophe Arviset]

Dear all

Indeed, as stated by Ray, even "minor" revisions should go through the 
recommendation process.
Wrt deciding if the revision should be "minor" (eg 1.1) or "major" (eg 
2.0), I would be inclined at this stage, as discussed at the TCG/Exec at 
Garching, to fix the problems, potential inconsistencies, required 
clarification, compatibilities with new IVOA standards that have been 
discovered during implementation rather than including now significant 
new things. Sticking to this should allow a smoother and faster 
recommendation process.

Cheers

Christophe

Ray Plante wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Keith Noddle wrote:
>> To start with your last point first, "I'm not sure there's an IVOA 
>> position" is the honest answer. Standard practice would dictate that 
>> a minor revision must be backwards compatible with earlier versions 
>> whilst a major revision can break that rule. However, I would qualify 
>> that and propose that any change that breaks backwards compatibility 
>> should be flagged (i.e. marked as deprecated) in a preceding minor 
>> revision. Minor revisions would need to go through the review and 
>> recommendation processes but it ought to be more of a rubber stamp 
>> than anything else; it's no big thing, but a procedural device I 
>> believe we would do well to observe.
>
> There is a baseline position.  If we want to revise a recommendation, 
> it needs to go back through the standardization process with a 
> properly incremented version.  We don't have a position on "errata", 
> though. (Someone spoke this word at the TCG/Exec meeting, and the 
> response indicated no clear consensus.)
>
> I will admit that I once got a typo-level fix into a document, but I 
> don't think we're talking about something like that here.
>
> The main thing is that a document change needs adequate open review.  
> We can gather consensus to limit the changes made to a document so as 
> to expediate its approval.  That's what we did with Simple Cone 
> Search, and that's the avenue that I believe is currently open to us 
> with regard to fixing SSA and SDM.  The key word there is "limit."  
> More changes=more discussion.
>
> cheers,
> Ray
>

-- 
Thanks in advance

Cheers

Christophe


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Christophe ARVISET                       Christophe.Arviset at esa.int

European Space Agency (ESA)
European Space Astronomy Centre (ESAC)
Science Operations Department
Science Archives and Computer Support Engineering Unit

P.O. Box 78
28691 Villanueva de la Canada                 Tel: +34 91 813 12 78
Madrid - SPAIN                                Fax: +34 91 813 13 08
------------------------------------------------------------------- 


================================================================================================
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The
unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content
is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please delete it from your system and notify
the sender. E-mails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed. ESA shall not be liable
for any e-mail if modified.
=================================================================================================