From rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu Mon Feb 13 09:31:05 2012 From: rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu (Ray Plante) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:31:05 -0600 Subject: StandardRegExt: comments on a few changes requested Message-ID: Hi registry folks, Today I uploaded a revision of the StandardRegExt PR document to the StandardRegExt twiki page (http://www.ivoa.net/cgi-bin/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/StandardsRegExt). The changes were in response to the last TCG review comments. Two of the changes are worth noting to the WG; if you have any concerns about these changes, please share them. 1. Matthew Graham (VOEvent WG) suggested that adding two more allowed values to the "status" attribute of the element: "iwd" and "note". This attribute indicates that status of the version of the standard in the IVOA process, and the previously allowed versions were "rec", "pr", and "wd". I agreed and added these values; however, I note that the schema must be updated. This is should not be disruptive as I do not believe the schema has been put into use anywhere, yet. 2. Matthew also asked for an addition example, which I added as an appendix. This triggered a need to add a paragraph to section 3.1.2 (that is, I converted a non-normative note box to a normative paragraph). This explains a recommendation on how to describe DAL services specifically to label optional but ignorable input parameters with 'use="ignore"'; see the final paragraph for rationale and details. One of the things I discovered when writing this was an error in the VODataService document where the use attribute is defined. The schema defines 3 possible values: "required", "optional", and "ignore"; however, the explanatory text in the document only includes "required" and "optional". I bet we can fix this problem pretty easily; nevertheless, I have not let this error stop me from making reference to the "ignore" value in StandardRegExt. Your thoughts are welcome. I will ask to have this new version to the repository within the next day; however, I will delay request for final consideration of the revision by the Exec until I've heard from the RWG chair. cheers, Ray From rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu Fri Feb 17 04:00:26 2012 From: rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu (Ray Plante) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:00:26 -0600 Subject: StandardsRegExt: links to schemas Message-ID: Hi again, Following up more on TCG review comments, we had a very good suggestion from Andreas Wicenec recommending that we not only make the human-readable standards document discoverable via this record but also the schema document. Providing a link to an example instance is also suggested. I want to propose a means for doing this and your feedback is requested. In particular, if anyone thinks it is too late in the process to introduce additional elements into the schema. Here's an example of what I propose http://www.ivoa.net/xml/SIA/v1.0 VOResource extension schema for registering SIA services http://rofr.ivoa.net/examples/SIA.xml Here are definition details: o this would be part of a vstd:Standard resource type (and thus inherited by vstd:ServiceStandard) o the element would be optional and could appear multiple times o the element could appear multiple times o the namespace attribute and would be required o the element is optional o the element would be optional and could appear multiple times Note that some of our standards define multiple schemas (e.g. SimpleDALRegExt and RegistryInterface), thus the need for multiple occurances. When we have multiple occurances, we need a way to distinguish between them: the namespace attribute serves as the label, and the element differentiates them for the human viewer. Note that for IVOA schemas, the namespace and location are identical; however, this would not necessarily be true for non-IVOA schemas nor for working draft versions. Note also that the schemas are not necessarily independent of each other; consequently, an example might well require or benefit from the use of multiple schemas. The publisher can choose the most appropriate element to put the example into (or could even repeat the URL across multiple elements). I made no attempt to identify what type of schema it is. Doing so implies that we are supporting automated interpretation of the underlying documents. I feel this would be too complicated to support without further work (and a clear use case). The main use case we are targeting is human discovery of the schemas. I've attached the bit of XML that would be added to the StandardsRegExt schema to support this if you want to see the details. I've also appended a full example, StandardsRegExt.xml. cheers, Ray -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: addin.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: StandardsRegExt.xml Type: application/xml Size: 3300 bytes Desc: URL: From rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu Fri Feb 17 07:26:25 2012 From: rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu (Ray Plante) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:26:25 -0600 Subject: updated StandardsRegExt internally available Message-ID: Hi folks, I've updated both the specification and the schema documents for the proposed element I described in my previous post. I've also created a new example using it. You can find all these on the on the StandardsRegExt page (http://www.ivoa.net/cgi-bin/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/StandardsRegExt). If I can get sufficient endorsement for the new element, I'll have this uploaded to the repository for wider review. cheers, Ray From greene at stsci.edu Fri Feb 17 07:39:04 2012 From: greene at stsci.edu (Gretchen Greene) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:39:04 +0000 Subject: updated StandardsRegExt internally available In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ray, i think Andreas suggestion to add the schema element is very practical and useful. I reviewed the document description and example and unless others think this is too big a change for the last minute, i.e. maybe there's something we missed, I support the changes. -Gretchen ________________________________________ From: registry-bounces at ivoa.net [registry-bounces at ivoa.net] on behalf of Ray Plante [rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 10:26 AM To: IVOA Registry WG Subject: updated StandardsRegExt internally available Hi folks, I've updated both the specification and the schema documents for the proposed element I described in my previous post. I've also created a new example using it. You can find all these on the on the StandardsRegExt page (http://www.ivoa.net/cgi-bin/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/StandardsRegExt). If I can get sufficient endorsement for the new element, I'll have this uploaded to the repository for wider review. cheers, Ray From m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk Mon Feb 20 02:36:25 2012 From: m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk (Mark Taylor) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:36:25 +0000 (GMT) Subject: StandardsRegExt: links to schemas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ray, If the main use case is, as you say, human discovery of the schemas, it doesn't seem to add all that much benefit, since for a human making use of such a registry record, the cost of the additional step of indirecting via the human-readable standard document itself is likely to be low compared with whatever use is being made of it (e.g. trying to understand what it means and how to use it). Having said that, the content of this sounds reasonable and harmless enough, though I haven't thought about it in great detail. However, introducing new functionality at the TCG review stage is by my reading contrary to the document review process as currently formalized in the DocStd document, and it means there will have been no IVOA-wide review of this part of the standard. It does seem to be the case however that DocStd is not universally followed to the letter, so maybe that doesn't matter enough to block what looks like a fairly minor change. I think the TCG (CC'd) needs to be consulted about whether it's OK to make this change at this stage, but if there is general agreement I won't argue against it. Mark On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Ray Plante wrote: > Hi again, > > Following up more on TCG review comments, we had a very good > suggestion from Andreas Wicenec recommending that we not only make the > human-readable standards document discoverable via this record but > also the schema document. Providing a link to an example instance is > also suggested. I want to propose a means for doing this and your > feedback is requested. In particular, if anyone thinks it is too late > in the process to introduce additional elements into the schema. > > Here's an example of what I propose > > > http://www.ivoa.net/xml/SIA/v1.0 > VOResource extension schema for registering SIA > services > http://rofr.ivoa.net/examples/SIA.xml > > > Here are definition details: > o this would be part of a vstd:Standard resource type (and > thus inherited by vstd:ServiceStandard) > o the element would be optional and could appear multiple > times > o the element could appear multiple times > o the namespace attribute and would be required > o the element is optional > o the element would be optional and could appear > multiple times > > Note that some of our standards define multiple schemas (e.g. > SimpleDALRegExt and RegistryInterface), thus the need for multiple > occurances. When we have multiple occurances, we need a way to > distinguish between them: the namespace attribute serves as the > label, and the element differentiates them for the human > viewer. Note that for IVOA schemas, the namespace and location are > identical; however, this would not necessarily be true for non-IVOA > schemas nor for working draft versions. > > Note also that the schemas are not necessarily independent of each > other; consequently, an example might well require or benefit from the > use of multiple schemas. The publisher can choose the most > appropriate element to put the example into (or could even > repeat the URL across multiple elements). > > I made no attempt to identify what type of schema it is. Doing so > implies that we are supporting automated interpretation of the > underlying documents. I feel this would be too complicated to support > without further work (and a clear use case). The main use case we are > targeting is human discovery of the schemas. If the main use case is human discovery of the schemas, there doesn't seem to be that much gain > > I've attached the bit of XML that would be added to the > StandardsRegExt schema to support this if you want to see the details. > I've also appended a full example, StandardsRegExt.xml. > > cheers, > Ray > > > > -- Mark Taylor Astronomical Programmer Physics, Bristol University, UK m.b.taylor at bris.ac.uk +44-117-928-8776 http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/ From rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu Mon Feb 20 03:12:27 2012 From: rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu (Ray Plante) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:12:27 -0600 Subject: StandardsRegExt: links to schemas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Mark, On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Mark Taylor wrote: > However, introducing new functionality at the TCG review stage > is by my reading contrary to the document review process as currently > formalized in the DocStd document, and it means there will have been > no IVOA-wide review of this part of the standard. This is indeed what I wanted to hear someone say. I wanted to be responsive to all TCG comments; however, it certainly did feel like we were crossing a line. Nevertheless, the revision is helpful: not only does it demonstate that the suggestion is more than a trivial change, it shows what a subsequent, post-REC update could look like. Other opinions from the TCG? > If the main use case is, as you say, human discovery of the schemas, > it doesn't seem to add all that much benefit, since for a human making > use of such a registry record, the cost of the additional step of > indirecting via the human-readable standard document itself is likely > to be low compared with whatever use is being made of it > (e.g. trying to understand what it means and how to use it). This is a reasonable argument. I might offer that a human that encounters a rendering of the record such as this one: http://vao.stsci.edu/directory/getRecord.aspx?id=ivo://org.gavo.dc/misc/tapexamples (which doesn't actually define a schema; that is, an autogenerated, human-readable rendering of the record) and perhaps who is not completely ignorant of the context of the standard might appreciate seeing a link to the schema file and associated examples. thanks, Ray From m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk Mon Feb 20 05:13:33 2012 From: m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk (Mark Taylor) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:13:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: StandardsRegExt: links to schemas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: (I've narrowed the distribution again since this concerns the details of the proposal rather than the procedure) On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Ray Plante wrote: > > If the main use case is, as you say, human discovery of the schemas, > > it doesn't seem to add all that much benefit, since for a human making > > use of such a registry record, the cost of the additional step of > > indirecting via the human-readable standard document itself is likely > > to be low compared with whatever use is being made of it > > (e.g. trying to understand what it means and how to use it). > > This is a reasonable argument. I might offer that a human that > encounters a rendering of the record such as this one: > > http://vao.stsci.edu/directory/getRecord.aspx?id=ivo://org.gavo.dc/misc/tapexamples > > (which doesn't actually define a schema; that is, an autogenerated, > human-readable rendering of the record) and perhaps who is not > completely ignorant of the context of the standard might appreciate > seeing a link to the schema file and associated examples. I'm a bit confused then (quite common when I'm discussing topics with the word "schema" in). What schema(s) would be referenced in a registry record like this? As you say this standard doesn't define a schema. The examples are very useful, but given that, they should be (and in this case are) in the human-readable standard document, or at least linked from it. Further, it's much easier to give context to the examples if they are approached from the human-readable document than simply referenced from a registry record. -- Mark Taylor Astronomical Programmer Physics, Bristol University, UK m.b.taylor at bris.ac.uk +44-117-928-8776 http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/ From rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu Mon Feb 20 07:14:21 2012 From: rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu (Ray Plante) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:14:21 -0600 Subject: StandardsRegExt: links to schemas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Mark, (Note that as a registry "insider", I'm more ready to accept to accept your "outsider" opinion than my own, so this discussion is meant to tease out the essentials.) On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Mark Taylor wrote: > I'm a bit confused then (quite common when I'm discussing topics > with the word "schema" in). What schema(s) would be referenced > in a registry record like this? As you say this standard doesn't > define a schema. Imagine a stylesheet-rendered version of the example given in section 3.1.1, the record for the StandardsRegExt standard which includes the links to the schema and examples. > The examples are very useful, but given that, they > should be (and in this case are) in the human-readable standard > document, or at least linked from it. > Further, it's much easier to give context to the examples if they > are approached from the human-readable document than simply referenced > from a registry record. These schemas and examples embedded in the spec documents have not typically been available as links to separate, electronic versions, but I suppose they could have. That said, I get your point that the there is not necessarily a strong need to add links to schemas and examples in the record, particularly at this time in the review process. thanks, Ray From m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk Mon Feb 20 07:33:15 2012 From: m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk (Mark Taylor) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:33:15 +0000 (GMT) Subject: StandardsRegExt: links to schemas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Ray Plante wrote: > Hi Mark, > > (Note that as a registry "insider", I'm more ready to accept to accept > your "outsider" opinion than my own, so this discussion is meant to > tease out the essentials.) while attempting to avoid us both falling over backwards to agree with each other - you've probably got more different perspectives than me on the reg, I tend to just do one thing with it. > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Mark Taylor wrote: > > I'm a bit confused then (quite common when I'm discussing topics > > with the word "schema" in). What schema(s) would be referenced > > in a registry record like this? As you say this standard doesn't > > define a schema. > > Imagine a stylesheet-rendered version of the example given in section > 3.1.1, the record for the StandardsRegExt standard which includes the > links to the schema and examples. > > > The examples are very useful, but given that, they > > should be (and in this case are) in the human-readable standard > > document, or at least linked from it. > > Further, it's much easier to give context to the examples if they > > are approached from the human-readable document than simply referenced > > from a registry record. > > These schemas and examples embedded in the spec documents have not > typically been available as links to separate, electronic versions, > but I suppose they could have. OK well I agree that it's a Good Thing for people to be able to access both schema and examples easily. I would have thought that a (free-form, long) standards document is a better place for that sort of thing than a (formal, terse) registry record, but if registry insiders think it's appropriate to have it inside the registry, I wouldn't argue against it on the grounds of general desirability (after all having it in the registry record doesn't preclude it from appearing in standards documents too). > That said, I get your point that the there is not necessarily a strong > need to add links to schemas and examples in the record, particularly > at this time in the review process. -- Mark Taylor Astronomical Programmer Physics, Bristol University, UK m.b.taylor at bris.ac.uk +44-117-928-8776 http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/ From Christophe.Arviset at esa.int Mon Feb 27 08:55:50 2012 From: Christophe.Arviset at esa.int (Christophe Arviset) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:55:50 +0100 Subject: StandardsRegExt: links to schemas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20219_1330361743_4F4BB58E_20219_8274_1_4F4BB596.3050203@esa.int> Ray On 20/02/2012 12:12 PM, Ray Plante wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Mark Taylor wrote: >> However, introducing new functionality at the TCG review stage >> is by my reading contrary to the document review process as currently >> formalized in the DocStd document, and it means there will have been >> no IVOA-wide review of this part of the standard. > This is indeed what I wanted to hear someone say. I wanted to be > responsive to all TCG comments; however, it certainly did feel like we > were crossing a line. Nevertheless, the revision is helpful: not > only does it demonstate that the suggestion is more than a trivial > change, it shows what a subsequent, post-REC update could look like. > > Other opinions from the TCG? I would propose to address these comments about the procedure at the TCG teleconf tomorrow afternoon. My view would be that if Ray (author), Gretchen (Reg WG chair) and Mark agree and believe that this helps the reading and understanding of the document without being a major change and considering that Ray put this to the Reg WG mailing list, I would be ready to accept these changes at this later stage. Cheers Christophe > >> If the main use case is, as you say, human discovery of the schemas, >> it doesn't seem to add all that much benefit, since for a human making >> use of such a registry record, the cost of the additional step of >> indirecting via the human-readable standard document itself is likely >> to be low compared with whatever use is being made of it >> (e.g. trying to understand what it means and how to use it). > This is a reasonable argument. I might offer that a human that > encounters a rendering of the record such as this one: > > http://vao.stsci.edu/directory/getRecord.aspx?id=ivo://org.gavo.dc/misc/tapexamples > > (which doesn't actually define a schema; that is, an autogenerated, > human-readable rendering of the record) and perhaps who is not > completely ignorant of the context of the standard might appreciate > seeing a link to the schema file and associated examples. > > thanks, > Ray -- Thanks in advance Cheers Christophe ------------------------------------------------------------------- Christophe ARVISET Christophe.Arviset at esa.int Head of the Science Archives and Computer Support Engineering Unit Science Operations Department European Space Astronomy Centre (ESAC) European Space Agency (ESA) P.O. Box 78 28691 Villanueva de la Canada Tel: +34 91 813 12 78 Madrid - SPAIN Fax: +34 91 813 13 08 ------------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender. Please consider the environment before printing this email. From greene at stsci.edu Mon Feb 27 09:03:24 2012 From: greene at stsci.edu (Gretchen Greene) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:03:24 +0000 Subject: StandardsRegExt: links to schemas In-Reply-To: <20219_1330361743_4F4BB58E_20219_8274_1_4F4BB596.3050203@esa.int> References: , <20219_1330361743_4F4BB58E_20219_8274_1_4F4BB596.3050203@esa.int> Message-ID: Thank you for commenting Christophe, I will be attending the TCG tomorrow and will be interested to learn how we can address the late change process. This standard will be important for the registry working group to have a completed release of a base-lined version. -Gretchen ________________________________________ From: tcg-bounces at ivoa.net [tcg-bounces at ivoa.net] on behalf of Christophe Arviset [Christophe.Arviset at esa.int] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 11:55 AM To: Ray Plante Cc: IVOA Technical Coordination Group; andreas.wicenec at icrar.org; IVOA Registry WG Subject: Re: StandardsRegExt: links to schemas Ray On 20/02/2012 12:12 PM, Ray Plante wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Mark Taylor wrote: >> However, introducing new functionality at the TCG review stage >> is by my reading contrary to the document review process as currently >> formalized in the DocStd document, and it means there will have been >> no IVOA-wide review of this part of the standard. > This is indeed what I wanted to hear someone say. I wanted to be > responsive to all TCG comments; however, it certainly did feel like we > were crossing a line. Nevertheless, the revision is helpful: not > only does it demonstate that the suggestion is more than a trivial > change, it shows what a subsequent, post-REC update could look like. > > Other opinions from the TCG? I would propose to address these comments about the procedure at the TCG teleconf tomorrow afternoon. My view would be that if Ray (author), Gretchen (Reg WG chair) and Mark agree and believe that this helps the reading and understanding of the document without being a major change and considering that Ray put this to the Reg WG mailing list, I would be ready to accept these changes at this later stage. Cheers Christophe > >> If the main use case is, as you say, human discovery of the schemas, >> it doesn't seem to add all that much benefit, since for a human making >> use of such a registry record, the cost of the additional step of >> indirecting via the human-readable standard document itself is likely >> to be low compared with whatever use is being made of it >> (e.g. trying to understand what it means and how to use it). > This is a reasonable argument. I might offer that a human that > encounters a rendering of the record such as this one: > > http://vao.stsci.edu/directory/getRecord.aspx?id=ivo://org.gavo.dc/misc/tapexamples > > (which doesn't actually define a schema; that is, an autogenerated, > human-readable rendering of the record) and perhaps who is not > completely ignorant of the context of the standard might appreciate > seeing a link to the schema file and associated examples. > > thanks, > Ray -- Thanks in advance Cheers Christophe ------------------------------------------------------------------- Christophe ARVISET Christophe.Arviset at esa.int Head of the Science Archives and Computer Support Engineering Unit Science Operations Department European Space Astronomy Centre (ESAC) European Space Agency (ESA) P.O. Box 78 28691 Villanueva de la Canada Tel: +34 91 813 12 78 Madrid - SPAIN Fax: +34 91 813 13 08 ------------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender. Please consider the environment before printing this email. From rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu Mon Feb 27 10:04:05 2012 From: rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu (Ray Plante) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:04:05 -0600 Subject: StandardsRegExt: links to schemas In-Reply-To: <20219_1330361743_4F4BB58E_20219_8274_1_4F4BB596.3050203@esa.int> References: <20219_1330361743_4F4BB58E_20219_8274_1_4F4BB596.3050203@esa.int> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Christophe Arviset wrote: > I would propose to address these comments about the procedure at the TCG > teleconf tomorrow afternoon. > > My view would be that if Ray (author), Gretchen (Reg WG chair) and Mark agree > and believe that this helps the reading and understanding of the document > without being a major change and considering that Ray put this to the Reg WG > mailing list, I would be ready to accept these changes at this later stage. That would be helpful. I am prepared (i.e. documents are ready) to go in either direction as the TCG sees fit. For the record, I support the late changes. cheers, Ray From rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu Tue Feb 28 03:24:24 2012 From: rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu (Ray Plante) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:24:24 -0600 Subject: StandardsRegExt: links to schemas In-Reply-To: <441E4E5B-6224-4F6D-A152-5071EC7FD876@icrar.org> References: <20219_1330361743_4F4BB58E_20219_8274_1_4F4BB596.3050203@esa.int> <441E4E5B-6224-4F6D-A152-5071EC7FD876@icrar.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Andreas Wicenec wrote: > sorry for the hassle this proposal has caused. Hey, I'm thrilled for any sign of someone reading and thinking about the document! thanks! Ray From m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk Wed Feb 29 00:53:44 2012 From: m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk (Mark Taylor) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:53:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: StandardsRegExt: links to schemas In-Reply-To: References: <20219_1330361743_4F4BB58E_20219_8274_1_4F4BB596.3050203@esa.int> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Ray Plante wrote: > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Christophe Arviset wrote: > > I would propose to address these comments about the procedure at the TCG > > teleconf tomorrow afternoon. > > > > My view would be that if Ray (author), Gretchen (Reg WG chair) and Mark agree > > and believe that this helps the reading and understanding of the document > > without being a major change and considering that Ray put this to the Reg WG > > mailing list, I would be ready to accept these changes at this later stage. > > That would be helpful. I am prepared (i.e. documents are ready) to go > in either direction as the TCG sees fit. > > For the record, I support the late changes. Following the TCG discussion yesterday, I've got no objection to this change. Mark -- Mark Taylor Astronomical Programmer Physics, Bristol University, UK m.b.taylor at bris.ac.uk +44-117-928-8776 http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/