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

[Mark Taylor]

Mireille,

contrary to Markus's comments below, your summary appears to
retrospectively change the ID for ObsCore 1.0.
I think it has to be (as Markus said):

   either

   ivo://ivoa.net/std/ObsCore/v1.0
   or
   ivo://ivoa.net/std/ObsCore#table-1.1

Mark

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016, Mireille Louys wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 

--
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/