International Virtual Observatory Alliance

Difference: WDNumberingNomenclature (4 vs. 5)

Revision 52008-11-17 - PaulHarrison

META TOPICPARENT	name="IvoaTCG"

TCG discussion about the WD Standards numbering nomenclature

As per section 3.5 of the IVOA Technical Assesment and Roadmap for 2008:

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 schemes envisaged in sections 4 and 5 of the Guidelines and Procedures for IVOA Document Standards Management v1.0, dated 25th April 2004, 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 standardsto 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.

But we don't need to change the scheme if we feel that the current one is adequate, so each WG/IG chair should express clearly her/his choice :

1. I am happy with the existing scheme, so I will use it and make sure I enforce it for all future WDs.

2. I believe that the existing scheme could be improved, so I explain why and how I feel it could be improved.

TCG, Christophe Arviset, Severin Gaudet

IVOA, Fabio Pasian

Applications, Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor

Data Access Layer, Keith Noddle, Jesus Salgado

Data Model, Mireille Louys, AnitaRichards

Grid and Web Sevices, Matthew Graham, Paul Harrison

Added:

>
>

Whilst I would not choose the current form of the document numbering if starting from scratch, I think that we can live with it if we change some practices slightly.

The main problem with current practice appears to be the conflict with the desire for a REC to be a 1.0 version and the (probable) necessary changes that are required for the transition from public WD -> REC. This requires a little planning on the part of each working group, in that it would be sensible when promoting a document to public WD and give it a version number of 0.9 rather than 1.0 as seems to be the current practice. Even with the deficiencies of the current numbering scheme this gives a headroom of 9 iterations of the document before it is forced to be a 1.0 version, and allows the transition from PR to REC to contain some changes to the document, rather than PR1.0 potentially being a different document to REC1.0, so that the version number of the document is a true indicator of different content.

I think that this proposal has the important side effect of encouraging slightly earlier promotion of a document outside of a working group, so that cross working group issues can be explored before the document becomes too solidified

Main.PaulHarrison

Registry, Ray Plante, Aurelien Stebe

Semantics, Sebastien Derriere, Norman Gray

VOEvent, Rob Seaman, Alasdair Allan

VO Query Language, Pedro Osuna, Yuji Shirasaki

VOTable, François Ochsenbein

Standard and Processes, Francoise Genova

Astro RG, Masatoshi Ohishi

Data Curation and Preservation, Bob Hanisch

Theory, Herve Wozniak, Claudio Gheller

<-- 
 
 
 Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME = TWikiAdminGroup
 
 
-->

META TOPICMOVED	by="BrunoRino" date="1226914583" from="TWiki.WDNumberingNomenclature" to="IVOA.WDNumberingNomenclature"

View topic | History: r19 < r18 < r17 < r16 | More topic actions...