ADQL-0.9; another review & comment, please
masatoshi.ohishi at nao.ac.jp
Tue Dec 7 02:58:41 PST 2004
I haven't decided yet to promote ADQL-0.9 to the PR or not.
The IVOA recommendation
states in section 2.1,
Next maturity level. After a suitable review and trial period, the chair
of the Working Group may promote the Working Draft to a Proposed
Recommendation. Such advancement should occur only when the chair of the
Working Group is satisfied that consensus has been reached, and more formal
and extensive review is now warranted. Advancement to Proposed
1. The Working Group has fulfilled the relevant requirements of the
Working Group charter and those of any accompanying requirements documents.
2. The Working Group has formally addressed issues raised during the
development and review process (possibly modifying the technical report).
3. The Working Group has reported all formal objections.
4. Each feature of the technical report has been implemented.
Preferably, the Working Group should be able to demonstrate two
interoperable implementations of each feature. If the chair of the Working
Group believes that broader review is critical, the chair may advance the
document to Proposed Recommendation even without adequate implementation
experience. In this case, the document status section should indicate why
the chair promoted the document directly to Proposed Recommendation.
Two interoperable implementations are desirable, but not obligatory.
Therefore I would like to know which projects plan to implement (ADQL-0.9),
and to observe their results. If we find any serious problems, we have to
fix them, of course.
>My point is that we cannot discuss the content of the draft except in a very
>theoretical sense until we have tried to use it and that process won't be
>complete until early/mid 2005.
Is this a unified opinion from the entire AstroGrid Project ?
Or is this your personal opinion ?
Does this mean that AstroGrid has no plan to implement ADQL-0.9
until later next year ?
More information about the voql