There is also a small number of typos and minor items:
- Section 3: "Each Resource element contains one or more TABLE elements" - should be "... zero or more ...".
- Section 4.1: "elment" should be "element".
- Section 4.3: "expresses a spatial of temporal coordinate" should be "... spatial or temporal ...".
- Section 4.7: The new paragraph beginning "section 6 indicates ...": I don't believe that a null scalar "char" value can be represented with an empty TD element. Also, use in this paragraph of the phrase "default null value" seems a bit confusing to me; I suggest instead the phrase "representation of the null value" or "null representation".
- Section 5.2: The example here contains a PARAM element with text content; this is not permitted.
-- AlbertoMicol - 04 Sep 2009
I fully support Mark's comment on the INFO backward compatibility issues. It is an unnecessary burden for many of us, without a clear
immediate advantage (as I understood it, it is only done to allow future extensibility). Especially important given that SIA 1.0 and SSA 1.04 relies on the INFO tag to provide QUERY_STATUS information and SERVICE_PROTOCOL versions; examples quoted from PR-SIA-1.0-20090521 and SSA-20080201 (REC):
<INFO name="QUERY_STATUS" value="OK"> Successful Search</INFO>
<INFO name="QUERY_STATUS" value="ERROR">DEC out of range: DEC=91</INFO>
<INFO name="SERVICE_PROTOCOL" value="1.02">SSAP</INFO>
Hence, those protocols should be ammended, and all
existing SIAP and SSAP services would need an upgrade,
unless IVOA accept and handle
multiple versions of those protocols requiring different votable versions (quite an unnecessary complication and a burden for applications developers).
First off, +1 from me on the "first three issues" comment by Mark. But I have
another one: I'm unhappy about the inclusion of the sample document with
embedded STC in 3.1. In effect, it raises that note to a recommendation
status, and I think it's too early for that since there's been very little
discussion about it. So, I'd like to propose that the sample document is
removed.
Background: The note has some issues I've sent to Francois, but mainly
I think it's wrong to clobber the column's utype attributes for something
so common -- it would mean that specific data models could not assign
utypes of their own to columns carrying STC information (or clients would
have to know all these data models to know what STC roles are behind these
specific utypes). Also, libraries have a much easier time if STC info
remains confined to one element rather than it being all over the VOTable.
So, my suggestion was to reference the the columns from the AstroCoords group
rather than the other way round, something like
<GROUP utype="stc:AstroCoords.Position2D.Value2.C1" ref="RA1"/>
But well, that's something to be discussed elsewhere. I just think
we shouldn't promote the note to de-facto recommendation just yet.
Comments from the TCG during the normal RFC period (2009 July 10 -- 2009 August 21 September 09)
Applications (Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor)
Data Access Layer (Keith Noddle, Jesus Salgado)
Data Model (Mireille Louys, AnitaRichards)
Grid&Web Sevices (Matthew Graham, Paul Harrison)
Registry (Ray Plante, Aurelien Stebe)
Semantics (Sebastien Derriere, Norman Gray)
VOEvent (Rob Seaman, Alasdair Allan)
VO Query Language (Pedro Osuna, Yuji Shirasaki)
VOTable (Francois Ochsenbein)
Standard and Processes (Francoise Genova)
Astro RG (Masatoshi Ohishi)
Data Curation & Preservation (Bob Hanisch)
Theory (Herve Wozniak, Claudio Gheller)
<--
--> |