[Obscore1.1] WD comments

[Markus Demleitner]

Mark,

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:49:32PM -0400, CresitelloDittmar, Mark wrote:
> > way a validator could get me, as it has no way to figure out what I'm
> > doing behind my VOTable facade.
> >
> >
> I'm not sure I follow.  ObsCore:Table 7 is shows that the DB Table

Ah well, I was trying to play devil's advocate -- if obscore says the
dates must be stored/expressed/whatever in ISO 8601, and my DBMS
doesn't use ISO 8601, then technically it wouldn't implement obscore.

But:

> > Anyway, after these considerations I'd propose to remove  all
> > references to the storage format of dates, in particular in B.3.5 and
> > B.4.5.
> >
> 
> 
> This would be fine, so long as an implementor knows how to express
> the adql:TIMESTAMP elements.  Maybe this is already covered from
> the TAP document?.. Section 2.5:
>
-- right, that was my main point: TAP says how you're supposed to
deliver timestamps (rightfully, that should be VOTable, but that's a
minor detail), and therefore there's no need for obscore to say
anything about that except that the datatype in ADQL databases is
TIMESTAMP (which is not trivial); from there, the VOTable
serialisation follows.

What other systems that might some day be used to store obscore rows
might do about those dates is not for us to define at this point, and
it's not necessary to define it, either.

Cheers,

       Markus