UAT adoption

[Markus Demleitner]

Hi Registry + TCG,

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 11:27:34AM +0200, Molinaro, Marco wrote:
> 
> Il giorno mer 24 ago 2022 alle ore 13:37 Markus Demleitner <
> msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de> ha scritto:
> > Now that we have a proper vocabulary reflecting the UAT in the VO, we
> > can finally fix VOResource to actually explain what "use the UAT in
> > subject" means.
> >
> 
> I would rather see a different approach to
> the review process for cases like this one.
> My view/proposed approach:
> - the update is limited to a few sections/parts
> of the specification
> - a WD and then a PR is set up with the changes
> - the RFC states clearly at top that _only_
> those sections need to be reviewed
> - comments outside this scope are noted down but
> dismissed

Sounds good to me.  I'd say let's try it.  If you feel the same way,
please review the pull request at:

  https://github.com/ivoa-std/VOResource/pull/1

[from here on probably TCG material:]

And as usual, there is the temptation to feature-creep.  In this
case, it is that during RFC to 1.1, I've included the terms valid by
the voresource-affiliated vocabualries (content-type, content-level,
date-role, relationship-type) in the document.  Back then, we didn't
have Vocabularies in the VO 2, and hence these word lists were put in
somewhat haphazardly.

These days, I would update that to use ivoatex's make generate
machinery.  Since at this point, these vocabularies have not evolved,
this wouldn't change the document -- but of course it would still
mean diffs to review.  Can I do this?  Should I?

And how would that consideration look like if the vocabularies *had*
changed?  [ignoring the fact that I'd much rather not print the
identifiers from vocabularies in RECs in the first place].

I guess what I mean to say is: it's probably not easy to define such
"fast-track" changes.  But let's try and see.

            -- Markus