Vocabularies in the VO 2.1 Proposed Recommendation: Request for Comments

This is a Request for Comments on a minor update on Vocabularies in the VO, just updating the procedural appendices A, B, and C. The remaining material is unchanged.

Latest version of VocInVO 2.1 can be found at:

See also the source code at https://github.com/ivoa-std/vocinvo

Reference Interoperable Implementations

No changes to the machine-readable aspects; hence, see VocabulariesV20RFC.

Implementations Validators

No changes to (potentially) validatable content; hence, see VocabulariesV20RFC.

Comments from the IVOA Community during RFC/TCG review period: 2022-09-20 through 2022-11-01

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: 2022-09-20 through 2022-11-01

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 Chair

Applications Working Group

Data Access Layer Working Group

Data Model Working Group

Looks good, a few minor questions and comments that do not require any change

- Appendix A1: Is there some advice about the capitatisation or the term. My feeling is that lower case should be encouraged.

  • True, although that probably should be done in Sect. 4. I thought there already was a recommendation for lower-case-and-dashes (it can't be a requirement because sometimes we need to be compatible with other standards like Datacite), but I can't seem to find it now, either. If more people would like this to be explicit, I'm not be against writing a sentence or two to this effect into Sect. 4, even though it's a bit of out of scope for this simple update. -- MarkusDemleitner - 2022-10-13
- Appendix A1: Are the multiline description supported (with \n)

  • Not in implementation (which does not evaluate escapes), and I don't see where it would make sense; an lf would just be folded into whitespace in processing, as there is no significant whitespace in any of these items. -- MarkusDemleitner - 2022-10-13
- Appendix C: The git cookbook is very welcome, but a little bit discouraging

  • Yeah, I know. I liked the simple subversion processes better, too. But pressure for fork-and-merge in the IVOA was too strong, and I was the only one arguing in favour of considering more liberal policies. So, I don't think we have a lot of choice here. We could still say "If you want to write a VEP, ask for write privileges on the VEP repo and then just branch". But I'd only do that if sufficiently many people signalled they'd argue in favour that model when it is contested. -- MarkusDemleitner - 2022-10-13
- in general: I do not see the rationale for having 2 distinct GitHub repositories (Vocab + VEP)
  • They serve totally different purposes and have totally different audiences. The VEPs repo is for the general public (i.e., those who write VEPs) and actually part of the standards process; it will be forked and cloned widely (or so I hope). The repo with the vocabularies is just a tool for the vocabulary managers to do their job and should only be cloned by them (and perhaps by people writing entirely new vocabularies). Think of it as the source code of http://www.ivoa.net/rdf. -- MarkusDemleitner - 2022-10-13
-- LaurentMichel - 2022-10-13

Thanks for the answers, no need to change the text for so minor comments.

-- LaurentMichel - 2022-10-18

Grid & Web Services Working Group

No particular comment from GWS. it is good for me.

-- GiulianoTaffoni - 2022-12-07

Registry Working Group

Very useful standard for the Registry. No particular comment. -- RenaudSavalle - 2022-12-07

Semantics Working Group

Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group

Education Interest Group

Knowledge Discovery Interest Group

Operations Interest Group

Yes looks good. -- MarkTaylor - 2022-10-05

Radio Astronomy Interest Group

Solar System Interest Group

Theory Interest Group

Time Domain Interest Group

Standards and Processes Committee

TCG Vote : 2022-11-01 through 2022-11-XX

If 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.

Group Yes No Abstain Comments
DM *      
GWS *      
Registry *      
Ops *      

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r7 < r6 < r5 < r4 < r3 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r7 - 2022-12-07 - GiulianoTaffoni
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by Perl This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platformCopyright © 2008-2022 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback