VOEvent v2.0 is ready for prime time

[Rob Seaman]

On Mar 23, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Mike Fitzpatrick wrote:

> Let me pose a different reality check:  If we get to RFC and there is still debate
> about Reference in the comments, how will they be addressed to everyone's
> satisfaction?

Like I said:

>> Which is to say that we obviously will only move to RFC when the current open question is resolved.  So let's resolve it.  This may need to wait until after the VAO team meeting this week, or perhaps interested parties can have a food fight over lunch.

I suggest the combatants station themselves on opposite sides of the VOSpace lunch discussion today at the team meeting for maximum value.

> The flavor of discussion certainly sounds like WG material but I agree with 
> Norman that it is something that should be easily resolved so we can move
> forward.  Roy's comment about what a <Param> without a required name/value
> attribute means is more what I'd expect for RFC comments.

I think you're referring to a message Roy didn't choose to send to the list.  None of these have been RFC comments, but rather comments during the undefined two (or more) week period of time that follows PR, but precedes RFC.  Would it be better that we just waited silently during this period?

Can we simplify the options?

<Reference> has three attributes (and no value).  The URI attribute (that is, the actual value) is presumably non-controversial.  The name attribute appears inoffensive (if not deeply useful).  The type attribute is currently enumerated.  We want to relax the enumeration but impose a required format.  What should that format be?

There is also a notion of introducing additional attribute(s).  Do we need any such?  Can we limit this to a single new attribute?  What should that attribute be called?  What values should it take?

All attributes are currently optional.  Is there a (strong) motivation for changing this?

Question 1:  Can we all work within these constraints?

Question 2:  Is there any reason that contingent semantic data structures (e.g., vocabularies, SKOS-dohickies, whatever) can't be worked on later?

Rob