mjg at cacr.caltech.edu
Thu Jul 2 11:07:18 PDT 2009
The standards documents says:
"The number to the left of the (first) decimal point starts with 0 for
documents that are being discussed within a Working Group prior to
publication for IVOA-wide review. The number increments to 1 for the
first public version, and to 2, 3, ..., for subsequent versions that
are not backward compatible and/or require substantial revisions to
The definition of a Working Draft is:
"A Working Draft is published at the discretion of a Working Group
once the WG is satisfied that the document is sufficiently developed
to merit broader exposure and feedback"
So I think that a Working Draft fulfils the "IVOA-wide review"
If the integer progression is only a prerequisite for REC versions
then the standards document needs to be amended to say this.
On Jul 2, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Doug Tody wrote:
> If this were true I agree it would be crazy. But is a WD or PR a
> "standard"? I should think this would only apply to established
> standards that are already deployed. That is, to recommendations.
> Perhaps the documents and standards folks should clarify.
> Also, I don't think this is just limited to GWS; any DAL or DM
> for example might also have to deal with this issue.
> - Doug
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Matthew Graham wrote:
>> You might be aware that the Document Standards v1.2 PR has just
>> completed its RFC (http://www.ivoa.net/cgi-bin/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/DocStdRFC2
>> ). I raised concerns about the proposed versioning scheme:
>> "The document now states that there is an integer increment in the
>> version number in the case where subsequent versions are not
>> backward compatible. "
>> and the response that has been posted is:
>> "The Committee agrees that the version numbering scheme is
>> challenging when dealing with namespaces and WSDL, and leads to the
>> conclusion that when IVOA standards describe web services or have
>> associated XML schemas, with namespaces that when changed, cause
>> software to break, then these changes must both be accompanied by
>> an increment to the integer part of the document and the associated
>> "supplementary" files. This would not affect most of the standards
>> documents, and should not present any real logistical difficulty,
>> as there are a sufficient number of integers available to support
>> any number of revisions. "
>> This has greatest impact for this working group (GWS but I am also
>> cross-posting to Semantics) and essentially means that ALL (WD,
>> PR, etc) versions of our specs with WSDL/XML/RDF documents
>> (anything with a namespace) will only carry integer versions.
>> So, for example, the progression of VOSpace 2.0 would actually
>> proceed as:
>> VOSpace 2 (first WD)
>> VOSpace 3 (second WD)
>> VOSpace 4 (third WD)
>> VOSpace 5 (first PR)
>> VOSpace 6 (second PR)
>> VOSpace 7 (final PR)
>> VOSpace 8 (REC)
>> The next version would then VOSpace 9, etc.
>> Although this is very much a procedural issue, I just wanted to
>> flag it so that everyone is aware and happy with it before I approve.
More information about the semantics