VOSI: removing availability

[Patrick Dowler]

I was nominally editor for the last VOSI (the one with updates to tables)
and can do so again.

I'm fine with a single PR with multiple changes, especially when some are
corrections or general cleanup that would otherwise not get done.

will review asap,

--
Patrick Dowler
Canadian Astronomy Data Centre
Victoria, BC, Canada


On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 09:31, Markus Demleitner <
msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:

> Dear DAL, Dear GWS,
>
> [I'd suggest followups to GWS]
>
> Pat and I have moved the VOSI sources to github,
> <https://github.com/ivoa-std/VOSI>.
>
> The reason I am in this is because of the decision passed at the last
> Interop to no longer require availability endpoints (background:
> <https://ivoa.net/documents/caproles/>. In the interest of reducing
> the number of bells and whistles that VO implementors may feel
> obliged to implement, I'm suggesting to remove (almost) the entire
> spec of Availability (see below) in VOSI PR 1
> <https://github.com/ivoa-std/VOSI/pull/1>.  I'd much appreciate
> comments on this; in particular, we might decide to just make it
> optional instead, although I'd then ask about actual use cases for
> burdening an interoperability spec with it.
>
> Into the PR I'm also sneaking in a few Todos I noticed while scanning
> the document for text to change.  I'd say a separate PR for that
> would be overdone bureaucracy, but I'll make one if people are
> actually concerned by the two-topic PR.  Or, yikes, turn them into
> Github PRs, although I'd much rather have them in the interoperable
> git history than in the proprietary github issues, to be frank.
>
> Which brings me to the next question: Who'll serve as editor for this
> round of VOSI?
>
> Since I really would like to somehow resolve the situation that we
> require availability endpoints for all of our services, but only 367
> of 24804 actually have one (and, even worse, nobody bothers and the
> VO just runs fine with almost everyone violating this requirement),
> I'd volunteer for the availability change (even if it were to mutate
> into just making it optional) and the todos I've put in.
>
> But then I think the standard would profit from a bit more polishing,
> in particular smoothing out a few more SOAPisms that still are in
> there, and that I'm not volunteering for.  Plus, I'd much rather not
> be editor here.  So... if anyone else could see themselves serving as
> editor, I'll be really grateful (and already promise buying this
> editor a $BEVERAGE when there'll be proper interops again).
>
> Thanks,
>
>             Markus
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/grid/attachments/20220218/7c5a2df5/attachment.html>