VOEvent v2.0 is ready for prime time

[Frederic V. Hessman]

> <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?

The "uri" attribute is fine.

Leaving things as they orginally were means

	- having a useless "name" attribute;
	- having a "type" attribute commonly used for thousands of other  
things and hence a mess for practical-minded people like Roy.

That's why I'm arguing to drop "name" and change the name of "type" to  
something more specific and hopefully content-controllable.  I think  
it's more than "mumbling in one's ale" to suggest dropping a format  
attribute so I'm happy with "format" or even "mimetype" and leave the  
format to be simple text which somebody hopefully knows how to  
interpret.   Many VOEventers could live without semantic info but I  
agree with Norman that VOEvent should again blaze a trail and include  
one, really officially.  If the content is simply also URI then we're  
done.

But then I should simply stop and shut up.  Really.   Back to virtual  
hibernation until the next last-minute RPC announcement....

Rick