promotion of IVOA Document Standards document to Recommendation

[Robert Hanisch]

During the four-week open review period for the IVOA Document Standards
document, I received two comments.  One endorsed the document, and the other
raised a few questions.  I post here those questions and my responses,
vetted through the Standards Process Working Group, and also read and agreed
to by the person who submitted the comments, Reagan Moore.

With this posting I would therefore ask the IVOA Executive to endorse the
promotion of the document to an IVOA Recommendation.

Bob Hanisch
Chair, IVOA Working Group on Standards and Processes

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Reagan Moore" <moore at sdsc.edu>
To: "Robert Hanisch" <hanisch at stsci.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: call for review, IVOA Standards Process

> Bob:
> I read through the IVOA Standards Process document and have the
> following questions:
>
> - Section 1.1.  I do not know how to interpret "the expectation for
> future commitments from IVOA to pursue the topics covered by the
> note."  I can envision cases in which the topic is pursued by NVO,
> independently of the IVOA.  Also, the IVOA may learn about better
> technology and abandon the implementation at any point in the future.
> Can the set of expectations be quantified as a defined list:  initial
> implementation of concept; revised implementation of concept;
> alternate implementation of concept?

I would not want to limit the selections to a list, for fear that such a
list would not include all possible situations.  This wording is drawn
pretty much verbatim from the W3C, and I believe the main intention is to
encourage the editors of documents to describe the scope of a standard, the
direction it is taking, etc.  This can certainly include statements such as
"this is the final version of this document; it is to be superseded by XX."

> - Section 2.  The statement that a "Working Draft is a chartered work
> item of a Working Group" implies that the IVOA controls the
> development of the drafts?  Can an institution develop a draft
> independently of the IVOA and then submit the draft for review, even
> when a Working Group has not been formed?

Certainly the individual VO projects and organizations within them will
draft documents on their own, and it would make sense for them to use the
IVOA template.  However, I think that once a concept or proposal is of
sufficient interest as a potential IVOA standard, it should be brought
forward via a Working Group created by the IVOA Executive.  An proposal from
an individual project can be put forward by the relevant WG, or if a
relevant WG does not exist, one should be created (as we did for Grid and
Web Services last summer).  I think it is important to keep this process
vested in the IVOA in order to foster collaboration and buy-in.

> - should there be a section on copyright?  Will the documents be
> copyrighted by the IVOA?

I've already noticed at least one IVOA document claiming a copyright for
IVOA, 2003.  IVOA has no legal standing, however, so I find such a copyright
statement to be misleading and meaningless.  Furthermore, many of the people
contributing to these documents are doing so as part of their jobs, and thus
the documents may be considered as "work for hire".  In such cases, it is
the employer that legally has copyright unless the employer has explicitly
given permission to claim copyright to the employee.  This is a can of worms
that I would prefer to avoid altogether.  However, this point probably
merits further discussion.

> - should drafts be forwarded to the Global Grid Forum for endorsement
> when they involve Grid standards?

The process calls for the widest possible review within the IVOA community,
and this will surely overlap with the Grid community.  I think it should be
the judgment of the WG chairs and IVOA Executive in determining whether a
document has had sufficient review, and in cases where there is a clear link
or dependency to a GGF or other external standard (such as FITS), review and
endorsement by such groups should be sought.  This seems pretty much like
common sense to me, in that it would seem counterproductive to put forward
an IVOA standard that is in direct conflict or inconsistent with a related
Grid standard.

> - The GGF working group on astronomy will also develop drafts for
> recommendations on required grid capabilities, analyses of the
> appropriateness of Grid technologies.  What is the relationship
> between the IVOA drafts and the GGF drafts?

I think they are separate documents and separate processes.  Recommendations
to GGF regarding capabilities or usefulness of certain technologies are
different from IVOA standards, which define interfaces and protocols.