RFC period started for Obscore 1.1 / identifer update for the datamodel version

[Mireille Louys]

Dear DMers,

Thanks Markus .
I agree we should conform better to the IVOA Identifiers 2.0 standard .
I changed it in the updated PR version.

Taking into account RFC comment from Mark Taylor, only one datamodel tag 
should appear:

either

ivo://ivoa.net/std/ObsCore#table-1.0
or
ivo://ivoa.net/std/ObsCore#table-1.1

so that the changes between ObsCore version 1.0 and 1.1 are correctly 
identified.

Thanks, Mireille.
--
Mireille Louys,
CDS, Icube , University of Strasbourg, F

//
Le 14/06/2016 à 10:38, Markus Demleitner a écrit :
> It is for this reason that Identifiers 2.0 recommends to have
> standard identifiers of the form
>
>    ivo://ivoa.net/std/<standard name>/<something>-<version>
>
> where <something> is a particular aspect of the standard; that's a
> good idea because many standards at some point needed several
> different concepts versioned.  For Obscore, this would mean we'd like
> the standard id to be
>
>    ivo://ivoa.net/std/ObsCore#table-1.1
>
> Sure, this will look a bit odd because we cannot fix the standard id
> for version 1.0, and so, further down on p. 27, it will have to say:
>
>    Since ObsCore-1.1 is a superset of 1.0, TAP services that support
>    ObsCore-1.1 also support ObsCore-1.0 and should include both
>    'dataModel' elements, e.g.:
>
>    <dataModel ivo-id="ivo://ivoa.net/std/ObsCore/v1.0">ObsCore-1.0</dataModel>
>    <dataModel ivo-id="ivo://ivoa.net/std/ObsCore#table-1.1">ObsCore-1.1</dataModel>
>
>    This will allow clients looking for ObsCore-1.0 to find and use...
>
> Not particularly pretty, but I think it's still better keeping
> churning out one registry record per version.
>
> So -- does anyone object to fixing this this late in the process?
>
> Cheers,
>
>             Markus

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dm/attachments/20160616/19327020/attachment-0001.html>