VOTable 1.4 Proposed Recommendation: Request for CommentsSummaryLatest Draft: VOTable 1.4 (Proposed Recommendation) The main purpose of VOTable 1.4 is to support the new TIMESYS element. VOTable 1.4 is a backward-compatible revision whose primary purpose is to support a new TIMESYS element. For more information on TIMESYS, see this note: A Proposal for a TIMESYS Element in VOTable The other main differences between version 1.4 of VOTable and the preceding version 1.3 are:
• Applying erratum VOTable 1.3-1, un-deprecating COOSYS.
Changes made during the Working Draft phase are noted here: VOTable 1.4 Working Draft Notes
Update (2019-06-11): New PR Document uploaded to correct document date and status.
• Applying erratum VOTable 1.3-2, permitting F0 in precision. • Applying erratum VOTable 1.3-3, clarifying the meaning of arraysize="1". To Do Upon Approval, Prior to Upload
FutureThe VOTableInfo page contains a list of proposed changes that, during the WD phase, were agreed to defer to a future version. When the document maintenance is transitioned to GitHub, those item will be converted to GitHub issues.Reference Interoperable Implementations
Implementations Validators
Comments Prior to Official RFC PeriodClosed on 2019-06-04 with no comments -- TomDonaldson - 2019-06-04Comments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2019-06-05 - 2019-07-19 The comments from the TCG members during the RFC/TCG review should be included in the next section. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your Wiki Name so that authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Additional discussion about any of the comments or responses can be conducted on the WG mailing list. However, please be sure to enter your initial comments here for full consideration in any future revisions of this document
Comments from TCG member during the RFC/TCG Review Period: 2019-06-05 - 2019-07-19 WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any (including on topics not directly linked to the Group matters) or indicate that they have no comment. IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, althought their inputs are not compulsory. TCG Chair & Vice ChairApplications Working GroupData Access Layer Working GroupDocument looks fine; TIMESYS addition a useful one at current stage. I see a small discrepancy (document heritage driven, I suppose) in asking COOSYS and TIMESYS elements to be placed before the elements that refer to them: COOSYS has this as a SHOULD, TIMESYS as a MUST. I get it cannot be aligned for back compatibility reasons. -- MarcoMolinaro - 2019-07-11 Response: Thank you for pointing our that discrepency. As you say, backward compatibility prevents it from being addressed now, but improving the consistency between COOSYS and TIMESYS has been added to the list of future items to consider. -- TomDonaldson - 2019-08-18Data Model Working Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | -- LaurentMichel - 2019-09-27 (on behalf of JesusSalgado) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Grid & Web Services Working GroupThe document is well written, and addesses the important topic os TIMESYS. No particular comments from me. -- GiulianoTaffoni - 2019-08-12Registry Working GroupApproved from Registry standpoint. I don't have the background to comment deeply on TIMESYS details, but it looks straightforward to implement if needed and the parallel with COOSYS fits nicely. A note on the arraysize=1 clarification: since we're no longer working in the confines of smallest possible text changes for errata, there might be places elsewhere in the text where arraysize is discussed where it would be helpful to mention. Not strictly necessary to address this, just a thought. -- TheresaDower - 2019-06-04 Response: It is definitely possible that we missed some opportunities to clarify the arraysize=1 situations. At this point I think it's best to collect suggestions for specific wording changes on the the list of future items to consider. It's OK for anyone to add to that list or to e-mail the apps list. Moving forward, I hope to track them as github issues instead. -- TomDonaldson - 2019-08-18Semantics Working GroupWe would like to caution against at this point that the representations of the resources you get when you dereference the vocabulary URL given in the specification will probably change in the course of our work on Vocabularies in the VO 2.0. This does not impact the usability of the present specification where the vocabularies are used as simple word lists. Validators based on the current representations might need (reasonable) adaptations later, though. It's probably ok if this caveat remains here; we don't think this merits mentioning the the spec. Also, we remark that the example in 3.7, where a LINK element is used to reference a SKOS concept, is using an outdated and abandoned vocabulary (on purl.org). Since this is content taken over from a previous version, and a new-style physical quantities vocabulary is not yet finalised, we do not object to leaving things as they are, though. Although it's arguably out of scope for this update, as the responsible WG we're happy to see that VOTable now references VOUnits. Stylistically, we would prefer the text "VOTable documents SHOULD write unit attributes as defined by Units in the VO [3]" so it's clear that validators can issue warnings when they don't. We would also suggest to mention this adoption of VOUnits in the changelog. One important thing, though: VOUnits does not admit the asterics as a multiplication symbol. Thus, "where the symbols . or * indicate a multiplication" must become "where the symbol . indicates a multiplication". (A) Apart from this one point, Semantics is fine with the PR as it stands. Editorial miscellanea: the @version attribute in the schema should be set to 1.4 before uploading the REC; the \ivoatype still says "Working Draft" in the PR and should be turned into "IVOA Recommendation" before upload; also, the status text needs to be fixed (the official wording is in DocStd) before the REC upload. Responses: First, the easy responses: I agree that we will need to pay attention to the implications of evolving vocabularies as we move forward, and I'm glad it's brought up here. For the example referencing a SKOS concept, I've added a note to revisit that on the the list of future items to consider. I've added notes on the editorial miscellanea near the top of this page (To Do Up Approval, Prior to Upload). Now watch me forget... The less easy response: Regarding VOUnits, the comment about removing the asterics to indicate multiplication made me worry about backward compatibility. I'm wondering if we should make clear the distinction between the new recommended use of VOUnits syntax and the old (deprecated?), but still allowable, syntax from prior VOTable versions. In that way, we could tighten up the language as you suggested on the VOUnits style without at least implicitly invalidating some existing units values. If my concerns seem reasonable, I would definitely welcome suggestions on rewording section 4.4. In any case, I'm definitely convinced that we should mention the adoption of VOUnits in the changelog. I will add that the next time the document is uploaded. -- TomDonaldson - 2019-08-18Data Curation & Preservation Interest GroupEducation Interest GroupKnowledge Discovery Interest GroupSolar System Interest GroupAbout the reference frames: the list of allowed terms mustn't be set in stone. VOTable is used in many Solar System projects, so we need to be able to define or name coordinate systems, reference frames and reference positions for those applications. So my main request would be to have a less constrained list of allowed <code>system</code> attribute values for COOSYS. We're working with Semantics to try to come up with a first list of coordinate systems / reference frames for Solar System datasets. [update]: We have draft document (from VESPA project) listing solar system coordinates systems in used by the science community: https://voparis-wiki.obspm.fr/display/VES/Planetary+Coordinate+Systems -- BaptisteCecconi - 2019-08-20Theory Interest GroupTime Domain Interest GroupMetadata for the time coordinates as described by TIMESYS element looks good -- AdaNebot - 2019-08-19OperationsLooks good to go from my point of view. -- MarkTaylor - 2019-06-26Standards and Processes CommitteeTCG Vote : 2019-06-05 - 2019-07-19If you have minor comments (typos) on the last version of the document please indicate it in the Comments column of the table and post them in the TCG comments section above with the date.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<--
|