mchill at dial.pipex.com
Wed Mar 3 13:41:08 PST 2004
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).
> 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
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... :-)
More information about the voql