TAPRegExt silent schema update?

[Markus Demleitner]

Dear Collagues,

A fairly long while ago, I posted erratum drafts for TAPRegExt that
would make dataModelURI xs:anyURI rather than vs: StandardID, which
in turn is necessary unless we want a new registry record for every
version of standards defining TAP data models (e.g.,
http://docs.g-vo.org/TREErr1.pdf from Nov 2014, but that's already a
digested form; see also
https://volute.g-vo.org/svn/trunk/projects/registry/tapregext-erratum1
for the source).

Unfortunately, the IVOA still doesn't have an Erratum process.  I had
hoped that this thing could wait until we have TAPRegExt 1.1, but
that's pending TAP 1.1 proceedings (as it should, since we may find
out we need additional elements in there), while we now *really* need
that minor schema update.  There are new publishing registries that
need to be validated and have TAP services with data models like RR
or EPN-TAP in them that have new-style identifiers, and Obscore 1.1
will also have a new-style id.

So, things get urgent.  Lacking an Erratum process, I'd like to apply
for an emergency procedure.  In this special case, where nobody
has ever said anything against the proposed change although it has
been the subject of several reviews (including the WG review of
TAPRegExt 1.1): Can't we just go ahead and upload the updated schema
file?  It's been available for quite a while from 
https://volute.g-vo.org/svn/trunk/projects/registry/TAPRegExt/TAPRegExt-v1.0.xsd,
and it's been in use for validation from within DaCHS for a long
time, too.

The relaxation of tr:dataModel from vr:StandardID to xs:anyURI is
really trivial, will never break anything, and is overdue ever since
RegTAP passed (Dec 8 2014).  And it seems it cannot wait until we get
a proper Errata process.

So: Does anyone from either the Registry WG or the TCG seriously
object to just silently updating the schema file in the document
repository and in the RofR validator?  I'd be happy to defend this in
front of the Exec any time.  And could, perhaps, the TCG chair say
that in this special situation that update is ok?  As I said, this is
becoming operationally problematic.

Thanks,

          Markus