promotion of IVOA Document Standards document to Recommendation

[Chenzhou Cui]

I have no objections also.

Chenzhou


Robert Hanisch wrote:
> 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 "this is the final version of this document; it is to be superseded by XX."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.
> 

-- 
============================================================
Chenzhou Cui
National Astronomical Observatory | Tel: (8610)64877703-1328
Chinese Academy of Sciences       | FAX: (8610)64878240
Datun Road 20A, Chaoyang District | Email: ccz at bao.ac.cn
Beijing 100012, China             | WWW: www.lamost.org/~cb
============================================================