[Ops] New IVOA Validation Page

Tue Apr 19 19:34:36 CEST 2016

Hello Ops!

FWIW I like the table a bit better for ease of editing and making the version numbers stick out better, compared to Mark's list. I have no strong feelings on this though and am just happy we're finally putting this all in one place.

I tried adding some RofR validator information just to test out editing usability. However, I don't actually know much about the current status of the VOResource validators originally from NCSA except they're in the back-end somewhere and Yulie Zografou is in the process of making adjustments to the main OAI validation suite. Once we settle on a format, if Yulie isn't on the Ops list I can ping her to add more information on the software and specifically the VOResource validators to the final page.

--Theresa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ops-bounces at ivoa.net [mailto:ops-bounces at ivoa.net] On Behalf Of Tom
> McGlynn (NASA/GSFC Code 660.1)
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 9:52 AM
> To: ops at ivoa.net
> Subject: Re: [Ops] New IVOA Validation Page
> 
> Presumably it would not be very hard to contemplate multiple ways of rendering
> the underlying information with the data saved as XML and different stylesheets
> to render it in a tabular or hierarchical or ...
> fashion.  However I suspect that way lies madness.
> 
> I think your style would be fine.  I was deliberately mimicking the table we use
> for the standards documents which I thought that would make it easy for a
> person looking for validators to find the correct one.
>  From the perspective of the IVOA it would also give a clearer sense of the
> coverage of validators for the IVOA standards.
> 
> What if we were to replace your table of contents with a real table which has
> the same rows as the standards table, includes a column which indicates the
> status of  validators for that standard, but points to text below for the
> descriptions and URL? That would give us both the view of how we're doing but
> not squeeze long descriptions into the
> table.   So we'd just have WG, Standard name, versions? and validator
> status in the table so we'd  get a  compact table highlighting where we have
> good validator coverage and where work is needed.
> 
> I considered whether we might want to add another column to the existing
> standards table, but I'd be concerned that it's too difficult to change that table.
> Having the validator page on the wiki makes it more flexible.  However we will
> want a link from the standards page to the validator page.
> 
>      Tom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Taylor wrote:
> > Tom & ops,
> >
> > concerning the format of the IvoaValidatorsSummary page:
> > it's a bit hard to flatten this kind of structured information into a
> > table (e.g. some rows of the table represent WGs, some standards and
> > some validators, so entries in a given column are not always directly
> > comparable).
> >
> > Just to see what it looks like, I've had a go at representing (some
> > of) the same information in a more hierarchical/document-like twiki
> > page.  You can see the results here:
> >
> >
> > http://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/Sandbox/MarkTaylorSandboxValidator
> > s
> >
> > I'm not sure if it's an improvement or not.
> >
> > Pros:
> >     - can link to an entry for a particular standard from outside the page
> >     - easier to navigate (from TOC)
> >     - more space available for detailed descriptions (where required)
> >     - more flexible
> >
> > Cons:
> >     - less compact
> >     - harder to compare entries by eye, e.g., versions supported by
> >       different validators or validator availability status for
> >       different standards
> >
> > Others may have opinions on which presentation is more useful.
> > If you/others prefer the tabular format - that's fine by me.
> >
> > I have some content to add for some of the standards (at least SAMP,
> > VOTable; also taplint contributions to UWS, ObsCore, TAPRegExt and
> > maybe others), I'll do that in due course.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Tom McGlynn (NASA/GSFC Code 660.1) wrote:
> >
> >> During the last TCG telecon I volunteered to help put up a page
> >> providing an introduction and summary of all validation capabilities
> >> associated with IVOA standards. I've begun this effort at
> >> http://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IvoaValidatorsSummary where
> >> my plan would be to ultimately mirror the IVOA standards page with an
> >> entry for every standard -- there's a long way to go.  There will be
> >> a talk on this at Cape Town, but I'd certainly be interested in
> >> comments earlier or from those who are not attending.
> >>   I've sent out this original note generally, but I'd suggest
> >> responses on the Ops list.  Feel free to comment on the format,
> >> arrangement and such as well as the content.  What would make this
> >> most useful to the IVOA and our constituents?
> >>
> >> I would be <very> appreciative of people responsible for various
> >> validation capabilities adding to or revising the current entries.
> >>
> >>      Regards,
> >>      Tom McGlynn
> >>
> >>
> > --
> > Mark Taylor   Astronomical Programmer   Physics, Bristol University, UK
> > m.b.taylor at bris.ac.uk +44-117-9288776
> > http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/
> > _______________________________________________
> > ops mailing list
> > ops at ivoa.net
> > http://mail.ivoa.net/mailman/listinfo/ops
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ops mailing list
> ops at ivoa.net
> http://mail.ivoa.net/mailman/listinfo/ops