ADQL-0.9; another review & comment, please

[Tony Linde]

Hi Masatoshi,

> Does this mean that AstroGrid has no plan to implement 
> ADQL-0.9 until later next year ?

That is correct - we will start looking at 0.9 after the end of Jan'05. 

Cheers,
Tony. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-voql at eso.org [mailto:owner-voql at eso.org] On 
> Behalf Of Masatoshi OHISHI
> Sent: 07 December 2004 10:59
> To: voql at ivoa.net
> Cc: Andrew Lawrence
> Subject: RE: ADQL-0.9; another review & comment, please
> 
> Tony,
> 
> I haven't decided yet to promote ADQL-0.9 to the PR or not.
> 
> The IVOA recommendation
> http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/REC/DocStandard/DocumentStandard
> s-20031024.html
> 
> 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 Recommendation implies:
> 
> 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 ?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>      Masatoshi
> 
>