<div dir="ltr">Hi Markus and all,<div><br></div><div>One thing I noticed about this guinea pig is that the status of the note</div><div>is not captured in the document. As per Francoise's draft on the</div><div>proposed procedure, the note goes from "Draft Proposed Note", to</div><div>"Proposed Endorsed Note", then to "Endorsed Note". As it stands,</div><div>the Status of the Document section only identifies it as a note.</div><div>But, since this is to be a lightweight process, perhaps the note status</div><div>can be portrayed by how/where the note is hosted (twiki, etc..) and</div><div>how it is communicated to the interested parties.</div><div><br></div><div>On a similar note, having a section named "Proposed Change"</div><div>would not make as much sense once the note is endorsed, and</div><div>could be interpreted as something yet to be accepted. I wonder if</div><div>language could be chosen that would make sense in all three</div><div>statuses so that the document template need not change upon</div><div>status change.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Brian<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Francoise Genova <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:francoise.genova@astro.unistra.fr" target="_blank">francoise.genova@astro.unistra.fr</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As a complement to Markus' email, you can find the draft proposed<br>
procedure for errata here:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/DocStd13" target="_blank">http://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/DocStd13</a><br>
<br>
in Section 3 of the document. The document is still a Note and by no way<br>
a standard yet. As explained by Markus, the Erratum for TAPRegExt will<br>
be used as test/reference implementation.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<br>
Francoise<br>
<br>
Le 01/10/2014 07:45, Markus Demleitner a écrit :<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> Dear DAL,<br>
><br>
> As a guinea pig for how to do Errata, and also as a prerequiste for<br>
> RegTAP, here's a draft Erratum for TAPRegExt as discussed earlier<br>
> this year:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://docs.g-vo.org/TREErr1.pdf" target="_blank">http://docs.g-vo.org/TREErr1.pdf</a><br>
><br>
> It's also in volute at<br>
> <a href="https://volute.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/projects/registry/tapregext-erratum1" target="_blank">https://volute.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/projects/registry/tapregext-erratum1</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> This is technically written as a Note for now; later, this would<br>
> probably be an (internal) draft erratum, but I'd rather only update<br>
> ivoatex to support such concepts once we are reasonably sure this is<br>
> how we want to do Errata.<br>
><br>
> As we can't really pass RegTAP until this is somehow "in", I'd like<br>
> to speed things up a bit; in particular, I'd like to move this to<br>
> (non-internal) draft (and we've yet to work out what that means for the<br>
> document repository) fairly soon after Banff.<br>
><br>
> So, if you care about TAP service descriptions and/or an Erratum<br>
> process for the IVOA, please have a look and let me/us know what you<br>
> think, if appropriate also over on DocStd.<br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
><br>
> Markus<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div>
</div></div></div>