Lifting 1.1 limit in SCS?

[Gregory MANTELET]

Dear Mar* and DAL,

I agree, this Erratum does seem pretty harmless to me. Some of the 
existing SCS have already taken the liberty to adopt the VOTable version 
they want/need.

Though I am no VOTable expert, I do not think of any VOTable 1.2+ 
feature that would break existing SCS clients...maybe someone with more 
experience with VOTable or SCS client would think differently, and if 
so, please, speak up. Anyway, SCS being very simple, I do not expect a 
lot of bad surprises in the existing client implementations (which 
should already be able to deal easily with VOTable 1.2+).

If in the same Erratum, I think it would also be OK to update the 
recommendation about the mime-type to use. Since it is a `SHOULD` and 
not a `MUST` it is however not a problem, according to me, to wait for 
the next version of SCS to change it.

Cheers,
Grégory



On 17/11/2021 13:19, Molinaro, Marco wrote:
> Dear Markus, Mark, DAL,
>
> I took the liberty to draft the erratum:
>
> https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/SCS-1_03-Err-2 
> <https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/SCS-1_03-Err-2>
>
> I'll try to work a bit better on the impact assessment
> (if you already have some numbers there it would help).
> I remember many services already returned VOTable-1.3.
>
> Also the rationale might need some rewording.
>
> I wonder if (same erratum, w/ title change) we can
> also clarify the mime-type there (same block of
> sentences), maybe simply pointing to the VOTable
> specification directly.
>
> The above erratum is freely modifiable and, if/when
> better agreed, I'll copy it also on the relevant
> github repo issue for the future version.
>
> Cheers
> Marco
>
> Il giorno mer 17 nov 2021 alle ore 12:18 Mark Taylor 
> <m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk <mailto:m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk>> ha scritto:
>
>     I think such an erratum sounds OK.
>
>     On Wed, 17 Nov 2021, Markus Demleitner wrote:
>
>     > Dear DAL WG,
>     >
>     > Since I once again ran into an annoyance in connection with SCS's
>     > instistance on VOTable 1.1 (you can't have datalink blocks on SCS
>     > because VOTable 1.1 can't have GROUP-s in RESOURCE-s as required by
>     > Datalink):  at the Ops session of the last interop, it sounded like
>     > nobody seriously expected SCS services any more to honour that
>     > requirement.  I'd certainly advocate such a stance, as I believe
>     > there is no operational reason for it any more (meaning: nothing in
>     > actual use will break if we drop it).
>     >
>     > Now, if indeed nobody really expects VOTable 1.1 to come out of SCS
>     > any more: Can't we write an erratum to SCS that just drops this
>     > single thing?  True, we've been labouring with a larger update on
>     > SCS, but that work is tough going for a number of reasons, and,
>     > frankly, I can't see that coming around for another year at the very
>     > least.
>     >
>     > So... would anyone speak up against such an erratum, even though it
>     > perhaps stretches a bit the notion of "erratum"?
>     >
>     >         -- Markus
>     >
>
>     --
>     Mark Taylor  Astronomical Programmer  Physics, Bristol University, UK
>     m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk <mailto:m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk>
>     http://www.star.bristol.ac.uk/~mbt/
>     <http://www.star.bristol.ac.uk/~mbt/>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Marco Molinaro
> INAF - Istituto Nazionale di AstroFisica
> Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste
> email marco.molinaro at inaf.it <mailto:marco.molinaro at inaf.it>
> tel. [+39] 333 33 20 564 / 040 3199 152

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dal/attachments/20211117/ef1ca00f/attachment-0001.html>