registry roadmap

[Andrew Lawrence]

My feeling is that the structure of Tony's roadmap is correct, but I
agree with Bob's  instinct that the version reached by this summer MUST
be complete and stable enough to  allow concrete deliverables by the
major projects by the end of the year using the  agreed standard. Naming
them V1.0 is a good way of signalling this. So basically I think  we
need to agree a minor re-write, but one that could have a major impact
psychologically.

Having said that, I understand Tony's worry that any such standard this
year must be  preliminary - in a year or two or three, technology will
have changed, we will  understand the problem that much more, and the
bar will be raised with respect to the  degree of software automation
expected, etc. So it must allowed or even expected that  V2.0 could be a
radical overhaul, not just a refinement. 

Peter and I, as current chair and deputy chair, have just been
discussing this, as it is  going to be a recurring problem in IVOA. An
obvious example is that we are continuing to  refine and improve UCDs,
while discussing various "fresh start" ideas, such as PCDs,  atoms, etc.
Perhaps every WG needs two streams - developing current standards, and
debating "next generation" standards. Its not clear how we number these
streams. V0.8 is  a step towards V1.0, and V1.3 is a refinement of that;
but is V1.8 a refinement of V1.0,  or an early version of a possibly
radically different V2.0 ?

I think this should be debated at the plenary in May.

                      andy