TCG Meeting (online) - March 11 2025 @ 14:00 UTC

• Attendees : Adrian, André, Anne, Gus, Gilles, Grégory, Janet, Jesus, Joshua, Mark CD, Mark K, Marco, Markus, Mathieu, Pierre L, Renaud, Sara, Shanshan, Sébastien, Tamara, Tess, Tom, Yihan
• Regrets : Bruno, Simon, Pierre F

Agenda

• (standing item): documents on track
  • RFC
    • VOEvent-2.1 - RFC page: where are we?
      • A little empty as of now; not ready for discussion
    • VOResource-1.2 - RFC page: finalise?
      • Reviews are in
      • Is semantics ready to vote? Yes, the comments have been addressed.
      • With no comments, approved by TCG
    • StandardsRegExt -1.1 RFC page: RFC formal deadline end of March
      • Deadline is not here yet
      • There are some reviews, so we're OK so far
  • EN
  • Errata & VEPs
    • VEP-016 - on hold

• documents off track
  • since, as of now, there is no easy way to track Notes, maybe we should keep a list for "recent" ones here (and on the TCG wiki): i.e. Notes that the community is working upon and/or recently released (will consider improvements in documents page to make them easier to find)
    • Parquet in the VO 1.0 - under Apps WG review
      • Adrian: Review complete. Note is published.
      • Open question is whether to pursue endorsed note.
        • Marco: No replies yet, so announce this on interop list, then pursue endorsed note process
        • Markus: Maybe this should be in a REC instead, even a chapter in VOTable.
          • Some discussion about whether the normative part should be in VOTable or as a separate std. Putting it in VOTable may tend to limit protocol explosion. Also we don't have a path for deprecating ENs.
        • Tom: Maybe the stakeholders with an interest will be happy enough with the note so they don't have to wait for EN or REC. Maybe it can be modular enough (like VODML annotations) to be a separate REC.
        • Pierre S: Using this internally as it is good for large things
        • Adrian: Topcat now supports Parquet as described in note.
        • Conclusion: Leave to Apps chairs to find path forward, EN vs VOTable REC vs separate REC. Adrian volunteers to push the discussion forward. If stakeholders are happy proceeding based on the note, let's let it mature a little to ensure we are happy before creating REC.
    • Radio ObsCore Ext.
    • HE ObsCore Ext.
    • TD ObsCore Ext.

• Roadmap 2024B
  • please, complete, a couple of WGs and some IGs haven't set a roadmap yet and we are 2-3 months to the next Interop
    • A couple groups still missing; please fill it in.

• ObsCore & extension(s)
  • report from the group meetings
    • Mathieu S: Same status as before. Met in DM running meeting and in HE and Radio a few times. Moving forward with Notes/ENs about what the groups want as ObsCore columns for their domains. HEIG just opened repo for this. TDIG has one as well.
    • Markus: What is the status of the discovery aspects? Is the current guidance sufficient? Are there points needed to improve that from the IG's perspective?
    • Mark K: Still open whether EN is good enough for the extensions. Radio need's to be reworked in a note (what should be in core vs. what should be in extension). May also be implications for CAOM.
    • Mark C-D: Once the columns are expressed in ENs, the the DM group should look at where the columns go (core v extension). Discovery needs to be vetted in Registry and DAL.
    • Marco: This is a complex scenario so at risk for dragging out the process.
    • Janet: Very good meeting with HE, Radio, TD. HE plans to have column info ready by interop. So may be ready to takes next steps. May have slowed Radio down a bit with new HE aspects, but in good position.
  • plans forward
    • Marco: Heading for a plenary (plenary preferred, but at least joint session) meeting at interop.
  • Radio + HE + TD & DM convergence?
    • REC review + ENs? / multiple RECs? / other
    • Registry "profile discovery": solution?

• Major version transitioning in Registry: updates (see MD's email)
  • Markus: Mainly the problem is to do major version transitions better than we have. It's hard. The document lays out what's complicated. We should figure out criteria for whom we hurt and why. There is no avoiding need for major revs. Need volunteers (from everywhere, esp. Reg, P3T types, ...)
    • With 2-3 volunteers (6 would be better) we should have a telecon and working dinner/meeting in College Park.
    • Markus will organize.
  • Joshua: Thanks to Markus. Write-up was well done. No immediate suggestions but will think more. Urges all to read it.

• Data Model WG
  • DM modular models
  • DM model levels (scope levels); includes other WG requirements
  • endorsement/approval of models as REC or EN
    • what about use cases?
  • Mark C-D: Questions are coming up about how the DM group needs to organize the data models themselves to best serve the needs of the various groups (esp. Apps, DAL). Sharing diagram showing building-block approach with small core models that be be combined for different use cases. End up with a whole bunch of models that people generally don't care about. They care about the combined models (MANGO, CAOM, Spectrum). This makes a lot of noise in the standards process. But if we go away from this modular approach, there could be a lot of duplication, or near duplication, of model concepts. Some concepts can be minimized (like Point in CAOM is just 2 floats), but that's not a sufficient point for other uses. Need some guidance from TCG on how the models are organized. Do we allow the layering? Need more discussion.
  • Marco: This also involves how we deal with documents and standards in general. I.e., we don't clearly address and validate what use cases are being addressed. Brainstorming at this point is needed. Looks like another plenary in IVOA.

• Other ongoing activities / Open topics
  • astronet.ru publishing registry
  • College Park Interop
    • Anne: Thanks very much to Francesca who got NASA money to UM, so we are funded and good for hosting the meeting. Working on building up travel info and building website. If you need an invitation, contact Anne (as early as possible).
    • Jesus: His org and CADC have some SKA conflicts the week of the IVOA, but will try to cover both. The conflict is in Europe, so long days could allow some attention to both.
  • TD IG chair
  • statistics on clients (agents) for TAP (and other protocols): OPS/DAL/Apps
  • GWS -> DSP name changes
  • IVOA static website rebuilding

• AOB

• Date for the next TCG vconf
  • proposed -- Monday 7 April 2025 @ 21:00 UTC --
    • Let Marco know of problems with that date/time.

TCG meeting dates, as well as other relevant meetings, should always be reported also at the IVOA Events page.