ADQL-0.9; another review & comment, please
edward.j.shaya.1 at gsfc.nasa.gov
Mon Dec 6 07:46:54 PST 2004
What would be the advantage of approving a standard that is likely
to change in a month or two.
I would think the whole point of a standard is to agree to not
change it for some reasonable length o f time, at least 6 months.
Projects under duress to get something working in the next few
months can use 0.7.4 without it being blessed as a standard. But if it
looks like 0.9 is coming right away or, if we let Tony have another
look at it and then bless it, then either way 0.7.4 is going away too soon.
Wil O'Mullane wrote:
>Units were included in this version pretty much under duress and only as optional. If you think units should delay the standardization of what is otherwise a working and test language then perhaps we should remove units from the doc.
>We now have 3 groups (AstroGrid,NOV,JVO) using 0.7.4 which is not an approved standard. Should we than approve that ?
>On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 10:41:14AM -0000, Tony Linde wrote:
>>Thanks for giving us more time with the document.
>>I'd like to suggest that we put the review on hold until later next year.
>>All the Jan demos planned so far are committed only to work with 0.7.4 and I
>>don't know that any of the projects involved in these have made any serious
>>attempts to implement 0.9 (or 0.8.1).
>>I think there are some very significant changes in the newer versions of
>>ADQL that merit substantive testing (especially Units) before we can propose
>>that the ADQL WD should be promoted. Before we tell people to start using a
>>new version of ADQL, we should have a couple of working prototypes in the
>>projects with published data resources.
>>And before we move towards a v1.0 of ADQL I think we ought to be able to
>>demonstrate two or three projects calling *cross-project* data querying
>>>From: owner-voql at eso.org [mailto:owner-voql at eso.org] On
>>>Behalf Of Masatoshi OHISHI
>>>Sent: 06 December 2004 09:02
>>>To: voql at ivoa.net
>>>Subject: ADQL-0.9; another review & comment, please
>>>Dear VOQL people,
>>>The other day I announced to you that the Working Draft,
>>>ADQL-0.9, was approved because I received no comments during
>>>the review period.
>>>However, I found that it would be much better to extend the
>>>review period before we promote the Working Draft to the
>>>Proposed Rec status. And I hace decided to reopen the
>>>discussion among the VOQL group.
>>>For your convenience I would like to mention that there is
>>>only one modofication on ADQL-0.9 from ADQL-0.8.1
>>>-- we added a description to allow special characters, "[ ]",
>>>to enclose names containing keywords or starting with numerals.
>>>Please download the file from
>>>(1) read the document and submit your comments on this WD
>>>before the Christmas holidays if possible;
>>>(2) report if you have implemented ADQL-0.9, or report if you
>>>plan to implement this version; and
>>>(3) if implemented, report how it works or which problems you found.
>>>If you think that it is better to extend the review period,
>>>please do not hesitate to propose so. Any other suggestions
>>>are, of course, welcome !!
>>>I note that our group may become dormant between the
>>>Christmas vacations and New Year's holidays in Japan (Dec 28
>>>-- Jan 3).
>>>Therefore I strongly suggest you to comment before Christman
More information about the voql