any objections to initiating an RFC period for RM V1.1?

[Robert Hanisch]

At the level of the registry it does not really seem necessary to me to
support Galactic I.  G II was adopted in 1958.  A resource provider with a
catalog having G I coordinates could still describe the general sky coverage
in G II.

Bob

On 11/9/05 3:06 PM, "Ed Shaya" <Edward.J.Shaya.1 at gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:

> Then, are we OK with no way to say GalacticI?
> Ed
> 
> Arnold Rots wrote:
> 
>> Galactic should be equivalent to GalacticII
>> 
>>  - Arnold
>> 
>> Ed Shaya wrote:
>>  
>> 
>>> In Frame, is Galactic without II to mean GalacticI or does it still mean
>>> GalacticII or does it mean unknown whether it is I or II?
>>> Ed
>>> 
>>> Robert Hanisch wrote:
>>> 
>>>    
>>> 
>>>> I believe we reached consensus on Resource Metadata V1.1 at the Kyoto
>>>> Interop meeting.  If anyone has any objections to the current Working Draft
>>>> ( http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/RM.html) would you please say so
>>>> now?
>>>> Otherwise Tony will promote the document to a Proposed Recommendation and
>>>> initiate the formal RFC period two weeks later (per the agreed practice).
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Bob
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>      
>>>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Arnold H. Rots                                Chandra X-ray Science Center
>> Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory                tel:  +1 617 496 7701
>> 60 Garden Street, MS 67                              fax:  +1 617 495 7356
>> Cambridge, MA 02138                             arots at head.cfa.harvard.edu
>> USA                                     http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  
>> 
>