promotion of IVOA Document Standards document to Recommendation

[Tony Linde]

Shouldn't it go to Proposed Recommendation next?

Cheers,
Tony. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ivoa at eso.org [mailto:owner-ivoa at eso.org] On 
> Behalf Of Robert Hanisch
> Sent: 22 October 2003 19:36
> To: interop at ivoa.net
> Cc: ivoa at ivoa.net
> Subject: promotion of IVOA Document Standards document to 
> Recommendation
> 
> 
> 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 be superseded by XX."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.
> 
>