Vocabularies in the VO 2.0, first working draft

[Mark Taylor]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019, Markus Demleitner wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, Mark Taylor wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 6 Sep 2019, Markus Demleitner wrote:
> >
> > > The first working draft of the new Vocabularies in the VO 2.0 has
> > > just hit the document repository at
> > > http://ivoa.net/documents/Vocabularies/ (I suspect that URI might yet
> >
> >  - I wonder if the (somewhat detailed? somewhat heavy?) VEP
> >    process should be documented elsewhere.
> >    It seems like the kind of thing that we might decide
> >    wants revision following experience of use, and unlike
> >    the syntax/semantics content of the rest of the document,
> >    it doesn't hurt anything if it changes at short notice,
> >    so it would be annoying to have to push through a new
> >    document revision just to change the processes.
>
> Hm... I have to say the need for a process is a large part of what made
> me tackle this in the first place[1].  I give you there's a certain
> risk the TCG at some point finds some new way of operating -- but then
> our DocStd document (at least) is broken, too.
>
> And of course, I've tried to relegate pure technicalities to a
> non-normative appendix so we can do "breaking" changes without touching
> the major version number.
>
> >    So maybe: replace section 4.2 with a comment to the effect
> >    that vocabulary updates will be managed by the Semantics WG
> >    in consultation with the TCG, and break out the details
> >    to a Note?  Or even a wiki page until we feel like it's
> >    working smoothly?
>
> If more people feel like that, I could very well imagine moving more of
> the material to the non-normative appendix, but for now I'm leaning
> towards defining the process normatively -- for one, because that's
> not much different from what DocStd does, but also because at least
> some vocabulary adaptors are worried that once they make their
> vocabulary "public" in that sense, every Tom, Dick and Harry can
> suddenly deprecate terms or add junk into "their" vocabulary.
>
> By having it normative that all WGs must consent, I can at least tell
> them "oh, you or your successors will always have a veto", which
> perhaps can overcome some of their concerns.  So, at least that much
> I'd like to retain in the normative part.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a defined process, just that
the recommendation track may not be the best place for it.
If there are really people who are so proprietorial about their
vocabularies that they think the edifice of the IVOA standards
process is required for their protection ... well OK maybe this
does make sense.

> >  - sec 3.1.1: "Definitions that contain the preferred label
> >    itself are at least suspicious" - well I think I see what you're
> >    getting at but at least in the case that the label is a single
> >    english word such an occurrence is going to be reasonable.
> >    I'd be inclined to lay off the veiled threats, but it's not a
> >    strong opinion.
>
> Uh... "veiled threats".  I guess you caught me there and I didn't do
> enough veiling :-)
>
> You see, with my Semantics chair hat on I'd really like to be able to
> point to something normative when telling people that "Something that
> frobnicates" is most likely not a helpful definition for the term
> "frobnicator" -- and you'd be surprised how many of the definitions
> we already publish have pretty much that form.
>
> I give you that'd not be a problem as long as everyone agrees what
> "frobnicates" means -- but realistically that's the exception rather
> than the rule.
>
> Still, people shouldn't feel threatened when they read the spec.  I've
> toned down the thing to "recursive definitions (i.e., those using the
> label itself) should be avoided whenever possible."  Is that better?

You really just want to say: "write a good definition".
I kind of feel that if people take the admonition against
recursion seriously it could in some circumstances make the
prose more complicated than necessary.  Of course people won't
take it seriously :-).  Anyway, if on consideration you're happy
with your current or previous text, I won't contest it.