TAPRegExt erratum, Identifiers for Obscore

[Mark Taylor]

Bob,

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Robert J. Hanisch wrote:

> I think it would be more consistent with the versioning system we have
> been using for nearly 10 years to make an incremental (0.01 delta) release
> of the document, note the errors that have been corrected in the change
> log, and fix the problem in the main document.  If people don't bother to
> look at the change log / erratum they will go on implementing the wrong
> thing.

I think what you suggest would be more consistent with the versioning
system used for the first few years of the IVOA, (e.g. VOSpace 1.15, 2009),
but not with the one that's been in force since DocStd 1.2 in 2010
(e.g. VOSpace 2.0, 2013).  Document numbers are now, at in least all
cases to date, a.b where a and b are single digits.  DocStd 1.2
ditched the idea of characterising small changes in content by
changes to the version number.
 
> It was never the intention to make it onerous to fix minor problems with
> documents.
> 
> If the WG Chair advises the TCG chair and IVOA chair that the nature of
> the change is that of a correction, repair of a typo, etc., there would be
> no need to go through the full-up review and sign-off process.
>
> Bob

I don't recall any historical precedent for this short cut process,
and I don't see any reference to it in the DocStd document.

> On 12/10/13 2:23 PM, "Patrick Dowler" <patrick.dowler at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >In my opinion, I think that the editor(s) and WD chair+vice-chair should
> >be able to add Errata to the end of a document and republish it to the
> >repository with the same version number. The date on the title page
> >probably has to remain unchanged as that is the date it was recommended,
> >so a secondary date might need to be added to the title page of the
> >document if/when errata are added/modified.
> >
> >Errata would never change the text of the document -- only a section at
> >the end (after Changes, before References).
> >
> >Thoughts? I can bring this up at the next TCG telecon to determine a
> >path forward, but I don't think this would have any technical hurdles.
> >
> >Pat

Personally I prefer the idea of a separate errata document accessible
from the document landing page, as Markus suggests, over either Bob's
or Pat's suggestions.  However, I think this is something that we need
to discuss in the TCG: both whether it's necessary/desirable at all,
and if so the details of how to do it.

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/