New version of the UCD List Maintenance standard - comments by June 23rd

[Francoise Genova]

Dear Marco,

Thank you very much for your very careful reading of the document and 
your thoughtful comments. I will process all your comments, but Mireille 
and I first discussed your main suggestion, which is to include the 
maintenance in the UCD main standard.

We have sympathy for the suggestion, because it makes sense and also 
because decreasing the number of standards is not bad. We think however 
that having two separate standards for the core UCD standard and the 
process linked to it allows us to make each of them evolve at its own 
pace - exactly what we have here, with the large projects, planetary 
sciences, etc, requiring now a more efficient way to update the UCD 
list, whereas the core standard at this stage can stay as is while the 
list itself should evolve.

We would like thus to keep the two standards separated at this stage. If 
we hopefully reach an efficient way to ensure maintenance through the 
coming version of that standard, and if at one point the core UCD 
standard is revised, we will likely propose to do what you suggest.

Many thanks again for your input

Cheers

Francoise

  Le 21/06/2017 à 13:05, Marco Molinaro a écrit :
> Dear Françoise,
> dear Semantics,
>
> My first comment on the maintenance document, is that I cannot see why
> it shouldn't fit into §4 (or nearby) of the UCD REC.
> I know, going for a major revision in the UCD specification my be
> painful, but maintaining 2 documents (UCD+maintenance, not to speak
> about the UCD list itself) is not less painful in my view.
> So, ok for revisioning the maintenance only, for quicker follow up,
> but it looks a bit odd to me.
>
> Apart from that, in §1, when describing the involved parties, a
> reference is made to the ucd-sci mailing lit.
> That's ok, but the list itself is outdated and has no traffic since
> 2013. So, if we keep that mailing list we should try to enforce its
> usage.
> Also because (§2.3) states that discussion is meant "...starting from
> the day of notification to the members of the board." and I cannot see
> another way to alert them but an email.
>
> As for the managing the modifications, I'd prefer having it
> UCDlist-version-date-RFM wrt RFM-UCDlist-version-date, because it is
> more along the line of what happens in the Errata (even if these are
> not errata at all) and keeps also the same accepted/rejected/proposed
> schema for its sections.
>
> I have also some problems with §2.4.
> I think that the first paragraph (Twice a year [...] than 4 weeks)
> should go after the subsequent one (At the end [...] endorsed notes.).
> And that reference to historical records of modifications should
> simply point to the "Changes" appendix in the EN-UCDlist.
> Finally I don't get the reason for the "tmp:" namespace. I mean, is it
> really needed to explicit this? If it's a proposed ucd it can have
> whatever namespace before approval. If, on the contrary, this is to
> say "look, it's tmp, but it surely will be accepted." then, the
> "explicit request" is not enough to support it.
>
> Finally, I can agree with Baptiste's request, but in that case the
> "Suggested by" details for the RFM must have an email in it or must be
> a TWikiName pointing to the appropriate personal TWiki page (that has
> to contain contact details).
>
> Cheers,
>       Marco
>
> 2017-06-18 9:27 GMT+02:00 Francoise Genova <francoise.genova at astro.unistra.fr>:
>> Thanks, Baptiste. I will add something about discussion with the proposer
>> 'if useful'.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Francoise
>>
>>
>> Le 17/06/2017 à 20:52, Baptiste Cecconi a écrit :
>>> Dear Françoise
>>>
>>> I have a comment on the discussion process presented in the document.
>>> Currently, UCD "RFM" are discussed offline or during the Semantics WG at
>>> Interop meetings. There is often a discussion between the proposer and "UCD
>>> experts", so that the reality of need can be evaluated. I think we should
>>> keep the capability to interact with the proposer. This interaction is often
>>> an “outreach" action for the UCD teams and it helps the proposer to better
>>> understand the UCD concept.
>>>
>>> I don't think the current document wording prevents the UCD Scientific
>>> board, nor the Semantics WG to interact with the proposer, but I think it
>>> would be better to mention it specifically.
>>>
>>> Sincerely
>>> Baptiste Cecconi
>>>
>>>> Le 2 juin 2017 à 15:50, Francoise Genova
>>>> <francoise.genova at astro.unistra.fr> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> As discussed during the Semantics session in Shanghai, Mireille and I
>>>> have been working on a new version (V2.0) of the UCD List Maintenance
>>>> Standard. The basis discussed in Shanghai is to take advantage of the newly
>>>> introduced IVOA Endorsed Note process (see
>>>> http://www.ivoa.net/documents/DocStd/20170517) to facilitate the updates of
>>>> the UCD vocabulary. It is proposed to deprecate the UCD list from
>>>> Recommendation to Endorsed Notes, which can be updated to the next version
>>>> by TCG agreement instead of going through the whole standardisation process.
>>>> The Shanghai session participants insisted on the need that the updates are
>>>> made as quickly as possible, and the new process allows to do that while
>>>> keeping a formal procedure and cross-WG check. Please note that Endorsed
>>>> Notes, like Recommendations, are published in the ADS, which ensures their
>>>> visibility.
>>>>
>>>> I posted the draft UCD List Maintenance Note V2.0 implementing this new
>>>> process on the Semantics page, together with a version in track change mode
>>>> from the current V1.20, to initiate the discussion "in WG". The documents
>>>> are here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.ivoa.net/internal/IVOA/IvoaSemantics/Note-UCDlistMaintenance-2.0-20170602.pdf
>>>> (also attached to this email)
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.ivoa.net/internal/IVOA/IvoaSemantics/Note-UCDlistMaintenance-2.0-20170602_withchanges.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Your comments are very welcome. Mireille and I would like to be able to
>>>> proceed as swiftly as possible, so we invite you to provide your comments by
>>>> 23 June so that we can deal with them before the Northern hemisphere
>>>> vacation period.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Francoise
>>>>
>>>> <Note-UCDlistMaintenance-2.0-20170602.pdf>