UCD problem in SSA/SpectrumDM

[Ray Plante]

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