mjg at cacr.caltech.edu
Thu Jan 31 08:16:21 PST 2008
You should note some IVOA process here:
# Working Group prepares Working Draft (version ≥1.0) and submits to
Document Coordinator for posting in the IVOA document collection.
# Working Group reviews the Working Draft. Two reference
implementations of any associated software are recommended.
# The Chair of the Working Group, with consent of the WG, promotes the
document to a Proposed Recommendation and submits it to the Document
Coordinator for posting in the IVOA document collection.
# The Chair of the Working Group issues a formal Request for Comments
(RFC) to the e-mail distribution list interop at ivoa.net. The RFC and
all comments must be logged on a TWiki page whose URL is given in the
RFC. A minimum comment period of 4 weeks must be allowed.
# The Working Group Chair responds to comments on the TWiki page. If
comments lead to significant changes to the document, the status
reverts to Working Draft (back to Step 1).
In particular, I'm curious whether we have two reference
implementations of associated software and if so, what is it and what
does it do? It's also entirely possible that this is inappropriate for
On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:31 AM, Norman Gray wrote:
> I've created a list of major issues for the vocabularies work at <http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/norman/ivoa/vocabularies/issues
> >. This, I believe, summarises the outstanding issues of principle
> which we've rehearsed here this last week, in the thread with the
> cryptic subject 'next'. These are distinct from various issues I
> believe to be more minor (but am happy to be disagreed with), to do
> with bugs in the existing vocabulary files.
> If anyone wants to add issues to this list, let me know. When these
> issues are resolved, by email or telecon perhaps, I think we should
> go for PR.
> I'm thinking that we should aim to go for PR in the second half of
> March, or very early April, being a month before the Trieste interop.
> There is an issues list at volute.googlecode.com, but I don't in
> retrospect think this is the best mechanism -- it mixes up major and
> minor issues, and perhaps isn't so easily accessible.
> All the best,
> Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
> eurovotech.org : University of Leicester
More information about the semantics