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

[Francoise Genova]

Dear Marco,

I already answered about your main comment, that at this point we would 
like to keep the Maintenance standard on a separate track from the main 
UCD one.

Your other comments, as well as Baptiste's, have been taken into account 
in the new version Mireille just sent. A better alignment with the 
Errata management is really good in particular.

Thanks a lot for the very careful reading

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 That's ok, but the list itself is outdated and has no traffic since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>