UCD problem in SSA/SpectrumDM
rplante at poplar.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Fri Nov 20 10:23:14 PST 2009
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Keith Noddle wrote:
> To start with your last point first, "I'm not sure there's an IVOA position"
> is the honest answer. Standard practice would dictate that a minor revision
> must be backwards compatible with earlier versions whilst a major revision
> can break that rule. However, I would qualify that and propose that any
> change that breaks backwards compatibility should be flagged (i.e. marked as
> deprecated) in a preceding minor revision. Minor revisions would need to go
> through the review and recommendation processes but it ought to be more of a
> rubber stamp than anything else; it's no big thing, but a procedural device I
> believe we would do well to observe.
There is a baseline position. If we want to revise a recommendation, it
needs to go back through the standardization process with a properly
incremented version. We don't have a position on "errata", though.
(Someone spoke this word at the TCG/Exec meeting, and the response
indicated no clear consensus.)
I will admit that I once got a typo-level fix into a document, but I don't
think we're talking about something like that here.
The main thing is that a document change needs adequate open review. We
can gather consensus to limit the changes made to a document so as to
expediate its approval. That's what we did with Simple Cone Search, and
that's the avenue that I believe is currently open to us with regard to
fixing SSA and SDM. The key word there is "limit." More changes=more
More information about the dm