TAPRegExt erratum, Identifiers for Obscore

[Robert J. Hanisch]

On 12/11/13 5:01 AM, "Mark Taylor" <m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk> wrote:

>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.

I stand corrected -- and I should have remembered this update, since I
edited the document.

> 
>> 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.

No there isn't, but there should be.
>
>> 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

I still worry about errata and the document they refer to becoming
separated.

Bob

>
>--
>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/