RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Interest Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
RFC period comments from Working and Interest GroupsApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve the document. KeithNoddleData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGI approve the document. MasatoshiOhishiTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArvisetTCG Review: Working and Interest GroupsNote that the space for RFC comments from the working groups was intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft.ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve this document. KeithNoddleData Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.] I approve the final draft document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesI approve this document. MatthewGrahamResource RegistryI approve the document (nice work) RayPlanteSemanticsI approve the SAMP final draft document. Good job, all! -- SebastienDerriereVO EventI still approve (and approve of) the document. -- RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTableI aprove the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationAOK. BobHanisch.OGF Astro-RGI approve the document. MasatoshiOhishiTheoryI approve the final document. HerveWozniakTCGI thank the authors for their changes after the RFC period and I acknowledge the creation of the www.ivoa.net/samp page. I approve the document. ChristopheArviset |
RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Interest Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
RFC period comments from Working and Interest GroupsApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve the document. KeithNoddleData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGI approve the document. MasatoshiOhishiTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArvisetTCG Review: Working and Interest GroupsNote that the space for RFC comments from the working groups was intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft.ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve this document. KeithNoddleData Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.] I approve the final draft document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web Services | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | I approve this document. MatthewGraham | |||||||
Resource RegistryI approve the document (nice work) RayPlanteSemanticsI approve the SAMP final draft document. Good job, all! -- SebastienDerriereVO EventI still approve (and approve of) the document. -- RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTableI aprove the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationAOK. BobHanisch.OGF Astro-RGI approve the document. MasatoshiOhishiTheoryI approve the final document. HerveWozniakTCGI thank the authors for their changes after the RFC period and I acknowledge the creation of the www.ivoa.net/samp page. I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Interest Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
RFC period comments from Working and Interest GroupsApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve the document. KeithNoddleData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGI approve the document. MasatoshiOhishiTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArvisetTCG Review: Working and Interest GroupsNote that the space for RFC comments from the working groups was intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft.ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve this document. KeithNoddleData Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.] I approve the final draft document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource Registry | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | I approve the document (nice work) RayPlante | |||||||
SemanticsI approve the SAMP final draft document. Good job, all! -- SebastienDerriereVO EventI still approve (and approve of) the document. -- RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTableI aprove the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationAOK. BobHanisch.OGF Astro-RGI approve the document. MasatoshiOhishiTheoryI approve the final document. HerveWozniakTCGI thank the authors for their changes after the RFC period and I acknowledge the creation of the www.ivoa.net/samp page. I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Interest Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
RFC period comments from Working and Interest GroupsApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve the document. KeithNoddleData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGI approve the document. MasatoshiOhishiTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArvisetTCG Review: Working and Interest GroupsNote that the space for RFC comments from the working groups was intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft.ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve this document. KeithNoddleData Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.] I approve the final draft document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsI approve the SAMP final draft document. Good job, all! -- SebastienDerriereVO EventI still approve (and approve of) the document. -- RobSeamanVO Query Language | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | [Approval in the RFC period] | |||||||
> > | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | I approve the document. PedroOsuna. | |||||||
VOTableI aprove the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationAOK. BobHanisch.OGF Astro-RGI approve the document. MasatoshiOhishiTheoryI approve the final document. HerveWozniakTCGI thank the authors for their changes after the RFC period and I acknowledge the creation of the www.ivoa.net/samp page. I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Interest Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
RFC period comments from Working and Interest GroupsApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve the document. KeithNoddleData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RG | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | I approve the document. MasatoshiOhishi | |||||||
TheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArvisetTCG Review: Working and Interest GroupsNote that the space for RFC comments from the working groups was intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft.ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve this document. KeithNoddleData Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.] I approve the final draft document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsI approve the SAMP final draft document. Good job, all! -- SebastienDerriereVO EventI still approve (and approve of) the document. -- RobSeamanVO Query Language[Approval in the RFC period]VOTableI aprove the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationAOK. BobHanisch.OGF Astro-RG | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | I approve the document. MasatoshiOhishi | |||||||
TheoryI approve the final document. HerveWozniakTCGI thank the authors for their changes after the RFC period and I acknowledge the creation of the www.ivoa.net/samp page. I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Interest Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
RFC period comments from Working and Interest GroupsApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve the document. KeithNoddleData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArvisetTCG Review: Working and Interest GroupsNote that the space for RFC comments from the working groups was intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft.ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve this document. KeithNoddleData Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.] I approve the final draft document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsI approve the SAMP final draft document. Good job, all! -- SebastienDerriereVO EventI still approve (and approve of) the document. -- RobSeamanVO Query Language[Approval in the RFC period]VOTableI aprove the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationAOK. BobHanisch.OGF Astro-RGTheory | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | [Approval in the RFC period] | |||||||
> > | I approve the final document. HerveWozniak | |||||||
TCGI thank the authors for their changes after the RFC period and I acknowledge the creation of the www.ivoa.net/samp page. I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Interest Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
RFC period comments from Working and Interest GroupsApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve the document. KeithNoddleData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArvisetTCG Review: Working and Interest GroupsNote that the space for RFC comments from the working groups was intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft.ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve this document. KeithNoddleData Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.] I approve the final draft document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsI approve the SAMP final draft document. Good job, all! -- SebastienDerriereVO EventI still approve (and approve of) the document. -- RobSeamanVO Query Language[Approval in the RFC period]VOTable | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | [Approval in the RFC period] | |||||||
> > | I aprove the document. FrancoisOchsenbein | |||||||
Data Curation & PreservationAOK. BobHanisch.OGF Astro-RGTheory[Approval in the RFC period]TCGI thank the authors for their changes after the RFC period and I acknowledge the creation of the www.ivoa.net/samp page. I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Interest Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
RFC period comments from Working and Interest GroupsApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve the document. KeithNoddleData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArvisetTCG Review: Working and Interest GroupsNote that the space for RFC comments from the working groups was intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft.ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access Layer | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | I approve this document. KeithNoddle | |||||||
Data Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.] I approve the final draft document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsI approve the SAMP final draft document. Good job, all! -- SebastienDerriereVO EventI still approve (and approve of) the document. -- RobSeamanVO Query Language[Approval in the RFC period]VOTable[Approval in the RFC period]Data Curation & PreservationAOK. BobHanisch.OGF Astro-RGTheory[Approval in the RFC period]TCGI thank the authors for their changes after the RFC period and I acknowledge the creation of the www.ivoa.net/samp page. I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Interest Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
RFC period comments from Working and Interest GroupsApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve the document. KeithNoddleData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArvisetTCG Review: Working and Interest GroupsNote that the space for RFC comments from the working groups was intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft.ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.] I approve the final draft document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemantics | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | I approve the SAMP final draft document. Good job, all! -- SebastienDerriere | |||||||
VO EventI still approve (and approve of) the document. -- RobSeamanVO Query Language[Approval in the RFC period]VOTable[Approval in the RFC period]Data Curation & PreservationAOK. BobHanisch.OGF Astro-RGTheory[Approval in the RFC period]TCGI thank the authors for their changes after the RFC period and I acknowledge the creation of the www.ivoa.net/samp page. I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Interest Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
RFC period comments from Working and Interest GroupsApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve the document. KeithNoddleData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArvisetTCG Review: Working and Interest GroupsNote that the space for RFC comments from the working groups was intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft.ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.] I approve the final draft document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventI still approve (and approve of) the document. -- RobSeamanVO Query Language[Approval in the RFC period]VOTable[Approval in the RFC period]Data Curation & Preservation | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | AOK. BobHanisch. | |||||||
OGF Astro-RGTheory[Approval in the RFC period]TCGI thank the authors for their changes after the RFC period and I acknowledge the creation of the www.ivoa.net/samp page. I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Interest Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
RFC period comments from Working and Interest GroupsApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerI approve the document. KeithNoddleData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArvisetTCG Review: Working and Interest Groups | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Note that the space for RFC comments from the working groups were intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft. | |||||||
> > | Note that the space for RFC comments from the working groups was intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft. | |||||||
ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.] I approve the final draft document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventI still approve (and approve of) the document. -- RobSeamanVO Query Language[Approval in the RFC period]VOTable[Approval in the RFC period]Data Curation & PreservationOGF Astro-RGTheory[Approval in the RFC period]TCGI thank the authors for their changes after the RFC period and I acknowledge the creation of the www.ivoa.net/samp page. I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Interest Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
RFC period comments from Working and Interest GroupsApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access Layer | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | I approve the document. KeithNoddle | |||||||
Data ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArvisetTCG Review: Working and Interest GroupsNote that the space for RFC comments from the working groups were intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft.ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.] I approve the final draft document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventI still approve (and approve of) the document. -- RobSeamanVO Query Language[Approval in the RFC period]VOTable[Approval in the RFC period]Data Curation & PreservationOGF Astro-RGTheory[Approval in the RFC period]TCGI thank the authors for their changes after the RFC period and I acknowledge the creation of the www.ivoa.net/samp page. I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Interest Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
RFC period comments from Working and Interest GroupsApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArvisetTCG Review: Working and Interest GroupsNote that the space for RFC comments from the working groups were intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft.ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.] I approve the final draft document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventI still approve (and approve of) the document. -- RobSeamanVO Query Language[Approval in the RFC period]VOTable[Approval in the RFC period]Data Curation & PreservationOGF Astro-RGTheory[Approval in the RFC period]TCG | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | [Approval in the RFC period] | |||||||
> > | I thank the authors for their changes after the RFC period and I acknowledge the creation of the www.ivoa.net/samp page. | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | I approve the document. ChristopheArviset | |||||||
<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Interest Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
RFC period comments from Working and Interest GroupsApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArvisetTCG Review: Working and Interest GroupsNote that the space for RFC comments from the working groups were intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft.ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.] | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | I approve the final draft document. MireilleLouys | |||||||
Grid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventI still approve (and approve of) the document. -- RobSeamanVO Query Language[Approval in the RFC period]VOTable[Approval in the RFC period]Data Curation & PreservationOGF Astro-RGTheory[Approval in the RFC period]TCG[Approval in the RFC period]<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Integer Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document. | |||||||
> > | From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Interest Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document. | |||||||
Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
RFC period comments from Working and Interest GroupsApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArvisetTCG Review: Working and Interest GroupsNote that the space for RFC comments from the working groups were intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft.ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.]Grid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventI still approve (and approve of) the document. -- RobSeamanVO Query Language[Approval in the RFC period]VOTable[Approval in the RFC period]Data Curation & PreservationOGF Astro-RGTheory[Approval in the RFC period]TCG[Approval in the RFC period]<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Integer Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
RFC period comments from Working and Interest GroupsApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArvisetTCG Review: Working and Interest GroupsNote that the space for RFC comments from the working groups were intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft.ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.]Grid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemantics | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | VO Event | |||||||
> > | VO Event | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | I still approve (and approve of) the document. -- RobSeaman | |||||||
VO Query Language[Approval in the RFC period]VOTable[Approval in the RFC period]Data Curation & PreservationOGF Astro-RGTheory[Approval in the RFC period]TCG[Approval in the RFC period]<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | We would appreciate it if chairs of the working and interest groups who have not yet reviewed the document could indicate their assent to the proposal or their concerns with it. | |||||||
> > | From February 16, 2009 through March 10, 2009 the SAMP document shall be reviewed by the members of the TCG. Each Working and Integer Group chair or representative should approve the document in the TCG review section at the bottom of the document. | |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | The recommendation is to be reviewed by the TCG and the executive committee before final promotion to recommendation.
| |||||||
Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Comments from Working and Interest Groups: | |||||||
> > | RFC period comments from Working and Interest Groups | |||||||
ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
TCG Review: Working and Interest GroupsNote that the space for RFC comments from the working groups were intended to spur early review of the document. A formal approval is still requested from each of the WG and IG heads. I [TAM] have noted cases where the RFC comments seemed to indicate an approval in the RFC period but the appropriate chairs should review this final draft.ApplicationsI approve this document. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData Modeling[Approval in the RFC period.]Grid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventVO Query Language[Approval in the RFC period]VOTable[Approval in the RFC period]Data Curation & PreservationOGF Astro-RGTheory[Approval in the RFC period]TCG[Approval in the RFC period] | |||||||
<--
|
RFC Discussion | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | This page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampInfo page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. | |||||||
> > | This page has been used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and reponses are included below. In response to the comments during the RFC an updated version, 1.11, has been delivered to the IVOA document repository. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists. | |||||||
> > | We would appreciate it if chairs of the working and interest groups who have not yet reviewed the document could indicate their assent to the proposal or their concerns with it. | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | The recommendation is to be reviewed by the TCG and the executive committee before final promotion to recommendation. | |||||||
Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampInfo page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingI approve the document. MireilleLouysGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampInfo page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData Modeling | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | I approve the document. MireilleLouys | |||||||
Grid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
RFC Discussion | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | This page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. | |||||||
> > | This page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampInfo page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. | |||||||
Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific
SAMP mailing lists.
Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | Response:
| |||||||
Comments from JesusSalgado
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Comments from JesusSalgado
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Comments from JesusSalgado
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Comments from JesusSalgado
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Comments from JesusSalgado
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Comments from JesusSalgado
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Comments from JesusSalgado
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from JesusSalgado
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | ||||||||
Comments from JesusSalgado
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | In fact, because of the already existing well-written client and hub | |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | packages provided to the community, the SAMP architecture is quite transparent to the client developer and the tricky part of SAMP is now the implementation of the relevant messages per application, so the MTypes list and description is, at least, as important as the SAMP general design and it complements it. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | In the document (section 5.3), it is mentioned that these MTypes could appear in an IVOA Note (instead of a document) to avoid administrative overhead. However, the UCD controller vocabulary (a similar document) is a formal document, so a more formal approach is still feasible. A | |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | possible intermediate solution could be a formal document with the already accepted messages and a working list of new MTypes waiting to be formally approved in note or web format. | |||||||
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
Comments from JesusSalgado
| |||||||
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageI approve the document. PedroOsuna.VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query Language | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | I approve the document. PedroOsuna. | |||||||
VOTablePLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbeinData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventThe IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeamanVO Query LanguageVOTable | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | PLASTIC proved to be a basic interoperability component in VO; and the SAMP document adds the possibility of understanding the underlied protocol. Well written in comprehensive terms. I approve the document. FrancoisOchsenbein | |||||||
Data Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO Event | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | The IVOA might consider standardizing nomenclature for pubsub. VOEvent has brokers. SAMP has hubs. Defining a hub as a broker for routing seems a bit redundant. I guess a hub would be a broker that never talks to another broker? A solid draft - complete and self-consistent. That's a "yea" (even a "yay!") from us. RobSeaman | |||||||
VO Query LanguageVOTable | ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
Data Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheoryApproved from TIG. HerveWozniakTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventVO Query LanguageVOTableData Curation & PreservationNo additional comments from DCP. BobHanischOGF Astro-RGTheory | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Approved from TIG. HerveWozniak | |||||||
TCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventVO Query LanguageVOTableData Curation & Preservation | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | No additional comments from DCP. BobHanisch | |||||||
OGF Astro-RGTheoryTCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventVO Query LanguageVOTableData Curation & PreservationOGF Astro-RGTheory | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
TCGThe document is well written, with clear reference and examples for implementation. Taking into account the already wide acceptance of PLASTIC, Annex A is particularly useful. In section 5.3 MTypes Vocabulary, should we directly define the NOTE of web page where the list of (existing and increasing) "samp" MTypes would reside ? I approve the document. ChristopheArviset | |||||||
<--
|
RFC Discussion | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | This page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. | |||||||
> > | This page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Since the document is in a public source code repository, interested viewers will be able to see the changes which are made as a consequence of these comments - see SampDoc for details. | |||||||
Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific
SAMP mailing lists.
Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventVO Query LanguageVOTableData Curation & PreservationOGF Astro-RGTheory<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:Comments from BobHanisch
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Comments from Working and Interest Groups:ApplicationsThis draft reflects the consensus of the Working Group. There are, as far as I know, no substantive controversies. TomMcGlynnData Access LayerData ModelingGrid & Web ServicesResource RegistrySemanticsVO EventVO Query LanguageVOTableData Curation & PreservationOGF Astro-RGTheory | |||||||
<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments: | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > | Comments from BobHanisch | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > | Response: | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments: | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
<--
|
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
RFC Discussion | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | This page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 9, 2008 through Januar 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. | |||||||
> > | This page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 8, 2008 through January 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. | |||||||
Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific
SAMP mailing lists.
Comments:<--
|
RFC DiscussionThis page will be used to encapsulate the discussion of the SAMP RFC from December 9, 2008 through Januar 16, 2009. Comments and responses will be included below. The SAMP protocol and its implementations are described in the documents linked to the SampProgress page. Please add your comments here directly, or send mail to either the general Applications or specific SAMP mailing lists.Comments:<--
|