ADQL-0.9; another review & comment, please

[Martin Hill]

So in fact early next year...  in fact some of the changes to the ADQL spec 0.74 
-> 0.8 were driven by us (and added to the standard 'under duress' :-) *because* 
of our requirements, not the other way around.

We're already dummying some parts of ADQL 0.7.4 to handle references to search 
fields that aren't necessarily columns in tables (for Registry queries), and I 
have some internals ready for handling units from earlier this year.



Tony Linde wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Martin Hill
www.mchill.net
+44 7901 55 24 66