Standards numbering nomenclatureText to go in the Assessment and Roadmap document The numbering nomenclature of the working drafts of IVOA standards in preparation is not homogeneous across WGs and makes it quite confusing for people not used to it. Although there are already some numbering scheme envisaged (http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/DocStd/Procedures-20040425.html#WorkingDrafts), it would be useful to have a numbering nomenclature which clearly and immediately shows that a certain IVOA standard is a REC or in a WD. Of course, that would take place only for the new standards to be produced. Various options can be envisaged, so some discussion should take place within the TCG in coordination with the Standing Committee on Standards and Processes to determine a possible better scheme. End of TextA potential option from ChristopheArviset There might be various ways to define such a nomenclature, here is a possible one:
An other option from NormanGray This might be more intricate than necessary. Here is an alternative proposal:
|
Standards numbering nomenclature | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Text to go in the Assessment and Roadmap document | |||||||
The numbering nomenclature of the working drafts of IVOA standards in preparation is not homogeneous across WGs and makes it quite confusing for people not used to it. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | It would be useful to have a numbering nomenclature which clearly and immediately shows that a certain IVOA standard is a REC or in a WD. Of course, that would take place only for the new standards to be produced. | |||||||
> > | Although there are already some numbering scheme envisaged (http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/DocStd/Procedures-20040425.html#WorkingDrafts), it would be useful to have a numbering nomenclature which clearly and immediately shows that a certain IVOA standard is a REC or in a WD. Of course, that would take place only for the new standards to be produced. | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Various options can be envisaged, so some discussion should take place within the TCG in coordination with the Standing Committee on Standards and Processes to determine a possible better scheme.
End of Text
A potential option from ChristopheArviset | |||||||
There might be various ways to define such a nomenclature, here is a possible one:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | An other option from NormanGray | |||||||
This might be more intricate than necessary. Here is an alternative proposal:
<--
|
Standards numbering nomenclatureThe numbering nomenclature of the working drafts of IVOA standards in preparation is not homogeneous across WGs and makes it quite confusing for people not used to it. It would be useful to have a numbering nomenclature which clearly and immediately shows that a certain IVOA standard is a REC or in a WD. Of course, that would take place only for the new standards to be produced. There might be various ways to define such a nomenclature, here is a possible one:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | This might be more intricate than necessary. Here is an alternative proposal:
| |||||||
<--
|
Standards numbering nomenclature | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | The numbering nomenclature of the working drafts of IVOA standards in preparation is not homogeneous across WG and makes it quite confusing for people not used to it. | |||||||
> > | The numbering nomenclature of the working drafts of IVOA standards in preparation is not homogeneous across WGs and makes it quite confusing for people not used to it. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | I would be useful to have a numbering nomenclature which clearly and immediately shows that a certain IVOA standards is a REC or in a WD. Of course, that would take place only for the new standards to be produced. | |||||||
> > | It would be useful to have a numbering nomenclature which clearly and immediately shows that a certain IVOA standard is a REC or in a WD. Of course, that would take place only for the new standards to be produced. | |||||||
There might be various ways to define such a nomenclature, here is a possible one:
<--
|
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Standards numbering nomenclatureThe numbering nomenclature of the working drafts of IVOA standards in preparation is not homogeneous across WG and makes it quite confusing for people not used to it. I would be useful to have a numbering nomenclature which clearly and immediately shows that a certain IVOA standards is a REC or in a WD. Of course, that would take place only for the new standards to be produced. There might be various ways to define such a nomenclature, here is a possible one:
<--
|
Standards numbering nomenclatureThe numbering nomenclature of the working drafts of IVOA standards in preparation is not homogeneous across WG and makes it quite confusing for people not used to it. I would be useful to have a numbering nomenclature which clearly and immediately shows that a certain IVOA standards is a REC or in a WD. Of course, that would take place only for the new standards to be produced. There might be various ways to define such a nomenclature, here is a possible one:
<--
|