VOEvent v2.0, some thoughts

[Frederic V. Hessman]

Since I've been putting up with the semantics working group in order  
to do #2, I'd be happy to contribute on this topic; the proto- 
proposal for IVOA vocabulary support via SKOS is well on it's way and  
an immediate VOEvent need for putting content together would be a  
great way to force the next big push ("So now we can have  
vocabularies - what do we do with them?").

Rick

On 19 Jan 2008, at 12:54 am, Rob Seaman wrote:

> Ok, back to work -
>
> A vision for VOEvent v2.0 was formed at the Hotwired workshop this  
> past Summer, and reached a solid consensus at the IoA InterOp.   
> This update will focus on adding significant new features, namely:
>
> 	1) XML signatures
> 	2) support for IVO vocabularies (for <Why> and <What>)
> 	3) extension schemata (<What>)
> 	4) time series via SDM (<What>)
> 	5) orbital elements via STC (<WhereWhen>)
>
> This will be a major upgrade to the capabilities of VOEvent, but  
> each of these improvements likely require only narrowly construed  
> tweaks to the standard itself.  v1 packets should validate against  
> the new schema.
>
> At this point I think we need to assign roles and action items.   
> I'll refrain from speculating about who wants to take a wack at  
> what, but I will be delighted to serve as your humble (ha!) scribe  
> again.
>
> V2.0 will remain independent of transport, but we should also  
> discuss the status of the transport document.  I'm happy to appear  
> somewhere down the list of authors for this one - who has time to  
> lead the charge?
>
> I believe a need will soon become obvious for a third document,  
> namely the user's guide that vanished early on from the standard.   
> This will convey best practices for things such as the usage of  
> <params>, etc., and in particular will be the entree into the  
> purpose tailored VOEvent vocabulary that must be built or  
> identified as part of #2 above.  I would also like to smith the  
> words for this document since VO-GCN needs coherent guidelines to  
> build against in the next few months.  The more the merrier for the  
> team here.
>
> Finally, perhaps the SEAP team might bring us up to date?
>
> Comments on 1-5?  Additional features or fixes?  Volunteers for  
> this or that?
>
> Note that the vocabulary squad has done dauntless duty over the  
> past few months.  We should read their docs and pay the team the  
> respect of savaging them severely.
>
> - Rob
>