RM proposed recommendation

[Robert Hanisch]

The RM document does explicitly note that implementations of the metadata
concepts may differ in different environments, so I hope we do not need to
worry about slight differences between RM and the VOResource schema.  If
there are key concepts in the VOResource schema that should be generally
described in the concept document, then I am happy to include them before
moving ahead.  Consensus in Strasbourg was, I thought, that RM was good
enough.

(Which says basically what Ray just said -- he just typed faster!)

Bob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tony Linde" <ael at star.le.ac.uk>
To: <registry at ivoa.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 2:14 PM
Subject: RM proposed recommendation


> My apologies for all that I've not pushed the RM document to proposed
> recommendation level - this had slipped my notice.
>
> One question that I thought of last week before I do so. There was
criticism
> of one of the other docs that its schema did not reflect the document.
>
> In our case, the RM document is not accompanied by a schema and the schema
> that we're trialling, while it covers all of the RM, is not completely
> reflected in the RM.
>
> Do we still think it worth pushing the RM doc forward or should we bring
it
> up to scratch with the schema (presumably delaying it until we've
discussed
> and ratified the schema)?
>
> If there are no comments about delaying the move to PR level by end of
> tomorrow I will assume general acceptance of doing so and will promote it
in
> time for the exec meeting next week.
>
> Cheers,
> Tony.
>
> __
> Tony Linde
> Phone:  +44 (0)116 223 1292    Mobile: +44 (0)7753 603356
> Fax:    +44 (0)116 252 3311    Email:  ael at star.le.ac.uk
> Post:   Department of Physics & Astronomy,
>         University of Leicester
>         Leicester, UK   LE1 7RH
>
> Project Manager,            Director,
> AstroGrid                   Leicester e-Science Centre
> http://www.astrogrid.org    http://www.e-science.le.ac.uk/
>
>
>