TAPRegExt erratum, Identifiers for Obscore

[GENOVA Francoise (OBS)]

Dear colleagues,

I agree that this is a point to discuss at the TCG level. Then the DocStd document will be updated accordingly.

Cheers

Francoise

 
Le Mercredi 11 Décembre 2013 11:01 CET, Mark Taylor <m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk> a écrit: 
 
> 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/