Maintenance of the list of UCD words - RFC

This document will act as RFC centre for the Maintenance of the list of UCD words - Proposed Recommendation.

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 in ResourceMetadataRFC (include your WikiName so 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.

Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the UCD mailing list, ucd@ivoa.net.

Comments


AndreaPreiteMartinez

1. Upgrade the list of authors, as for the other UCD-related Recommendation Documents.

Response (by AndreaPreiteMartinez):

Comment accepted.


BobHanisch

2. In Section 2.2, I think it would be better if the web form for submitting RFMs had a URL at ivoa.net. It would be fine if this were simply then redirected to CDS, but as an IVOA-level service I think this should have visibility on the IVOA web and an IVOA URL.

Response (by AndreaPreiteMartinez):

I agree. I then modified the text of the document as follows:

"A web-based form for requesting a modification of UCD words has been set up and it is accessible from the IVOA WG page at: IvoaUCD ."

and, accordingly, the Links section of the WG page at ivoa.net

3. In Section 2.3, the sentence "A negative answer shall be motivated" should be replaced by "A negative answer must be explained."

Response (by AndreaPreiteMartinez):

Comment accepted.


NausicaaDelmotte

4. In section 2.4, 'IVOA community' means everyone subscribing to interop@ivoa.net. And in the very beginning of section 2, it says that 'any member of the community can submit at any time a request for modification'. So does the combination of the two previous sentences also mean that only people registered to interop@ivoa.net can submit a RFM? What if someone is not part of interop@ivoa.net and would like to submit a RFM nonetheless? Or is it unlikely to happen maybe?

Response (by AndreaPreiteMartinez):

I changed "community" into "IVOA community" in order to avoid ambiguity.


Final comment by AndreaPreiteMartinez:

After the closing date of the RFC period I modified the document according to the comments accepted (see above) and circulated the revised text among the authors for a final check.

As a result I got the following extra comments:


* pag.4: dead-line -> deadline (the former is still correct, but looks antique)

Response: Accepted.


* pag.4: cryptical -> cryptic

Response: Accepted


* pag.4: In the paragraph on "Addition", the meaning of the second sentence is not clear ... Should this paragraph make explicit reference to the list of syntax codes at the very beginning of Appx A of the UCDlist document?

Response: I modified the paragraph as follows:

"Addition: A new UCD word is to be added. In addition to the general description, there needs to be an indication of the syntactic role, which determines how this word can be combined with other words (see the list of syntax codes in Appendix A of the document The UCD1+ Controlled Vocabulary)."


* pag.4, last paragraph: "The form is composed of AT LEAST 6 fields" so that we can add extra things to the form that we find useful without having to do a PR again.

Response: Accepted


* pag.6, last paragraph: "...the chairman of the WG will include the accepted clarified descriptions in a new version of the document". By distinguishing this case, the document could be read as implying that a new version of the document would be immediately released; I presume this is not the intention.

Response: I think this is exactly the intention.

The idea behind was to simplify the formal procedure if you only have changes in the description of ucd-words. By this I mean the procedure after the discussion in the Sci-board and WG (i.e.: PR, RFC, Exec, vote), as stated at the beginning of the sentence.


* our procedure doesn't involve a lot of interaction with the submitter - what if we misinterpret their web submission, or need clarification? What if they think we got it wrong, can they submit the same one again?

Response : I prefer to leave interactions free, rather than freezed into a standard procedure. I also personally prefer not to mix proposers into the discussion.

If a member of the Board+WG thinks that an interaction with the proposer is necessary, he's free to interact with the proposer. On the other hand, if all the members of the Board+WG misinterpret the RFM, there is something wrong with the RFM, not with the procedure. In this case the interaction is probably deferred to the end.



Topic revision: r10 - 2006-04-20 - AndreaPreiteMartinez
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platformCopyright © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback