0.7.3

[Martin Hill]

Wil O'Mullane wrote:

> Apart from the discussion of cardinality of AND 
> I have not heard major complaints about this last effort.
> May we assume this i generally accpetable.
> Or should we stick witht the previous verbose XSD ?
> (I presume not).

No. pleeease.

> 
> I would rather not change 0.7.3 - I think it is tidy and
> has addressed most issues raised earlier.

After we're removed this strange pairing of ORs and ANDs? If not why not?

> 
> Vivek has posted steps on its production.
> 
> I would like to get on with updateing the paper specification.
> 
> Tony you in particular said you wanted the XSD tied up so we can move 
> forward. 

Given this is still a prototyping stage, we shouldn't be 'tying' 
ourselves down to a format yet until it's been proved in practice.

But we need to settle *this version*, along with any dependent schemas 
(eg region.xsd and coord.xsd) so we can build against it.

> I think Martin our biggest oponent is on board with this
> version. SO may we agree this is good for the rest of this year ?

Oi!  I'm not your opponent!  I just wanted - after finding in practice 
that humans will need to use it - a simpler ADQL/xml that humans can 
use.  I'm happy with this one.

Although, for the next version, I have some requests for minor changes 
so it can work with heirarchical data sets... :-)