TCG Meeting (online) - Thursday December 11 2025 @ 21:00 UTC
Attendees
- Attendees : Adrian, Brigitta, Francesca, Gilles, Grègory, Gus, Janet, Marco, Mark CD, Mark K, Pat, Pierre, Sébastien, Stéphane, Steve, Tamara, Tom
- Regrets :
Actions
- OPEN - put together a template for call for proposals; model after DAL (postponed)
- OPEN - (ALL) brainstorm within groups about contributing to the data model usage hack-a-thon/workshop proposal (OPEN, was postponed)
- OPEN - put issues on DocStd git repo and work towards a F2F meeting with TCG (interop?) (DONE)
- NEW - standards to be moved to the obsolete section: LineTAP, CDP, ...
- CLOSED - astronet.ru: reported to Exec, up to Registry maintainers now
Agenda
Reminder about the DM hackathon and relationship to MANGO review.
DocStd discussion started so can close AI, though the discussion is certainly not complete
GM: Are currently testing whether SLAP is better than LineTAP, so let's not delete LineTAP just yet. This action can be an ongoing activity.
Closed the astronet.ru after concurrence from Exec. If the registry comes back, it can be readily reinstated.
- (standing item): documents on track
- RFC
- VOEvent-2.1 - RFC page - status & roadmap
Joshua has developed some code for validation. This uncovered one issue with the vocabulary. Marco to contact Baptiste.
Recent comments addressed in new PR.
What are the blocking elements here? This really has the highest priority at this point since the RFC period started in June and there have not been substantial comments.
GM: Lack of time for me. Expect to have comments soon.
GL: This is a big document. Suggest focus on motion propagation part which is interesting, then maybe generate momentum.
MM: Acknowledge the size.
GL: Brought up the possibility of splitting the document into smaller parts (motion propagation, photometry, DataLink, general things)
MCD: Reminder that the review process doesn't require your full agreement or even understanding, but is about how it affects your group. DAL and Apps probably need to take a good look at it.
PD: Has been reviewing it, trying not to review the content so much since didn't make comments earlier. Looking at lack of reviewing, lack of comments from community is concerning. Either it's perfect or nobody cares. Don't want this to happen with CAOM. One part is an abstraction for objects from somewhere else, while other parts are specific model elements. Some of the specific items are related to items in coords and measurements, but not the same. If this is a precendent of just being able to ignore coords and measuremente lead me towards wondering if I should care about this.
MM: Lack of comm. input is concerning but maybe understndable in this case. While there are definitely multiple parts to this, splitting at this time is probably not practical. Maybe the reviews can be one part at a time. The disconnect with coords and meas were discussed, for better or worse.
PD: Not saying if the models are right or wrong, but the disconnect does lead to wondering how much it matters.
MCD: Underscores the need to discuss purpose etc. of data models.
MM: ...some abservations about which groups are most likely to need deep-ish review.., is it sufficient to re-ask for focus on this review with a high priority, and also not drop the ball on the more general DM open questions? Any input on how to proceed is welcome. Not neglecting that there is some resistance, but the process we have does not ask for unanimous accord on the approach. This may not sound like string direction. Do you feel something is not right? Don't want this to be a recurrent issue.
SG: Should we talk more about what is sufficient criteria for moving forward?
MM: Within the current process the requirements mentioned are clear and depend on the chairs who have substantial discretion on the type of review they do beyond the general guidance of approaching it from your specifc group's perspective. More take up would be great, but not realistic given the difficulty in just doing a review. Beyond that, discussing Laurent's questions:
- Is anyone interested in using this model-based framework, or parts of it?- Do you think it is worth continuing to work on it, and if so, which parts should be prioritized?
MCD: Laurent's questions were a way to delve into the topics we've been discussing (is this model-driven workflow worth pursuing?). The same question applies to other DM work.
MM: If these broader DM issues are blocking you from reviewing, then please let us know your opinion.
No comments yet. Please have a look.
Not big, but blocking other activities.
-
- EN
- DataOrigin-1.2: PEN ( PEN doc): vote or ask for proper RFC + implications
We left the issue open on whether we should have a proper RFC or whether we can disucss and maybe approve at the next TCG meeting.
MCD: What is the criteria for a note to be endorsed? Asking for this and for the ObsCore notes coming up.
MM: Don't have a clear distinct between the 2 notes, but I usually have in mind the UDF catalog, where they are not standards but are a convention that can be used with some expectation of interoperability. Maybe the time pressure should not be considered for this EN as it may be too late for proper reference from DALI. For example, the ObsCore Radio extension can be an EN since it has been discussed and agreed but may require changes and/or migrations into ObsCore REC proper. All this can be part of the DocStd discussions.
GM: Think it is ready for vote as an EN. Have read and implemented it, and don't see conflicts with DAL. Don't think it needs an RFC period.
GL: Data Origin EN request was to be able to link from other standards and have stronger review than a regular note.
MM: Would be nice to hear from all WGs, so we can have an e-mail check-in and discussion on this, then vote in our next real meeting.
AD: Where should we give feedback?
MM: There is no wiki page, but github can work (https://github.com/ivoa-std/DataOrigin). GL will send e-mail asking for feedback regarding the content and whether you are OK with voting on EN next time, along with a place to add the feedback.
Have you read this and can you vote now?
Approved without objection.
-
- VEPs
- VEP-018: product-type#hyper-dynamic-spectrum - overview and/or vote
- VEP-019: ivoasem#ucd-syntax-code - overview (vote?)
- IVOA Northern Fall November 2025 Interoperability Meeting
- wrap-up and path forward
- how are the roadmaps doing?
Current roadmap: https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/2025BRoadmap
Clarification on the nomenclature that 2025B is from northern Fall interop 2025 to northern Spring interop 2026.
May be confusing to carry items forward from previous roadmap.
- (long standing topics reminder)
- positions still TBF: Radio IG vice-chair role is open
- new website: report
- IGs & TCG/CSP interfacing
- AOB
- I want to get Iris removed from the IVOA Apps page. We are no longer supporting it. (J Evans)
- Date for the next TCG
- last week of January 2026, proposal Wednesday 28 January 2025 @ 14:00 UTC
TCG meeting dates, as well as other relevant meetings, should always be reported also at the
IVOA Events page.
