DM Workshop wrap-up

[Mark Taylor]

On Wed, 21 Jul 2021, Gerard Lemson wrote:

> FWIW I personally think an explicit extension of the schema would be more appropriate.
> The whole VO-DML mapping approach was explicitly designed for use in VOTable, as an implementation/evolution of the ideas underlying the utype attribute.
> So that being explicitly part of the VOTable schema, even if only in an imported or included form, seems correct to me.
> But if it is (again) important that VOTable should not be changed, including it in RESOURCE seems the right thing.

In general, I would say that avoiding interdependencies 
(as opposed to compatibility) between separable components is 
good practice.  In this particular case, VOTable is very mature, 
while this VO-DML syntax, while it has benefitted from a great
deal of thought, hasn't had much confrontation with real-world use,
and so I'm concerned that changes might be required in future.
Protecting VOTable from possible fallout from that, especially
in absence of material advantages from creating such a dependency,
looks to me like a good plan.  From the point of view of VODML,
that means it doesn't need to wait for a VOTable update in order to 
be ready for use.  But, I guess it's a decision for VOTable
editors/Apps WG/TCG.

--
Mark Taylor  Astronomical Programmer  Physics, Bristol University, UK
m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk          http://www.star.bristol.ac.uk/~mbt/