IVOA Errata, Identifiers for Obscore

[Mark Taylor]

Markus,

On Mon, 9 Dec 2013, Markus Demleitner wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 01:54:07PM +0000, Mark Taylor wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Markus Demleitner wrote:
> >
> > > (2) How can I clean up the TAPRegExt example as quickly as possible,
> > > before even more implementors get confused?  Given that this is not
> > > normative text on TAPRegExt's side, could we do some sort of fast
> > > track?  Or can we add an erratum to the document entry page while
> > > matters take their proper way?
> [...]
> > It would be nice to have an erratum page associated with each IVOA
> > standard.  This could probably just be a wiki page, but should contain
> > things which are known to be problematic and possibly workarounds.
> > It would serve two purposes: first, act as a list of things that have
> > to get fixed in the next version, and second, as a reference for
> > implementors etc who are looking at the standard and scratching
> > their heads wondering how the text can possibly make sense;
> > often such things are known within the relevant VO (sub-)community
> > but there's nowhere to record them.
> 
> Ah, I'm not so sure about the "things that have to get fixed in the
> next version"; I'd like it very much if each document release
> automatically had a wiki page for feedback of this kind associated
> with it (this is basically what I'm trying to do with the TAP
> Implementation Notes), but I feel such a thing will stir controversy.
> 
> Errata, on the other hand, have been around in scholarly publishing
> basically forever.  I believe with some not-too-heavyweight process,
> we could have them within a reasonable timeframe in the IVOA, too.
> I'm now dreaming that "the TCG" might ask the SDP WG to change the
> SDP document (somewhat) as follows:
> 
>   Add a section 1.6, "Errata", with the content:
> 
>   As necessary, a Recommendataion can be accompanied by an Errata page
>   in the IVOA document repository.  Errata pages are versioned, i.e.,
>   REC-1.0 and REC-1.1 will have different sets of Errata.
> 
>   Errata may not be used to change the normative content of a
>   Recommendation.  They are intended both to allow corrections of
>   non-normative material (examples, typographics, clarifications),
>   and raise attention to specific issues with a Recommendation
>   together with a recommendataion to its resolution.  Examples for
>   the second type of Erratum include contradictions with other
>   Recommendations, internal contradictions, or severe obstacles to
>   implementation that have not been identified during the
>   standardization process.
> 
>   Errata can be proposed to the chair or vice-chair of the Technical
>   Coodination Group (TCG), who circulates the proposed Erratum on the
>   TCG mailing list.  Every member of the TCG may veto the treatment of
>   a piece of text as an Erratum on grounds that it introduces normative
>   changes; if no veto has been brought up within two weeks, the Erratum
>   is published in the IVOA document repository alongside the
>   Recommendation.
> 
>   At every session, the Executive Committee reviews the Errata
>   accrued since the last session.  The Executive Committee can
>   withdraw an Erratum with single majority.  Such Errata will be
>   marked as withdrawn in the document repository, possibly with a
>   reference to a superseding Erratum.
> 
> It sounds a bit clunky, but then we're talking SDP here.  And I'd
> really like "the TCG" to stand behind something like this, as it's
> fairly profound on the one hand, but, as Mark says, is needed pretty
> sorely.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>         Markus

thanks for this.  I've had the idea in mind for a while, but realised
it would take some actual work rather than just mentioning it, so I've
been procrastinating.  Your draft text is a very good start.

I will bounce this message to the TCG list.

Mark

--
Mark Taylor   Astronomical Programmer   Physics, Bristol University, UK
m.b.taylor at bris.ac.uk +44-117-9288776  http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/