From mleoni at eso.org Thu Mar 4 06:23:12 2004 From: mleoni at eso.org (Marco C. Leoni) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:23:12 +0100 Subject: Identifiers 1.1 In-Reply-To: <001501c401f0$915608d0$7deca782@stsci.edu> References: <4046EA3F.6030500@eso.org> <001501c401f0$915608d0$7deca782@stsci.edu> Message-ID: <40473BD0.4050207@eso.org> Hi Bob, this sounds like less work for the Document Coordinator: then I agree, let's merge the two docs - Working Draft and internal WG Draft - and remove the WD tree from the ivoa.net/Documents section of the site. Also, the IVOA Document Standards Recommendation needs to be updated to reflect these changes. Cheers, Marco Robert Hanisch wrote: >Folks, > > I think we've gone a bit overboard in our formatting rules here. There is >no point in making extra work for document authors, changing formats >unnecessarily. If you read our agreed upon standards process you find: >Working Draft. A document begins as a Working Draft. A Working Draft is a >chartered work item of a Working Group and generally represents work in >progress and a commitment by IVOA to pursue work in a particular area. The >label "Working Draft" does not imply that there is consensus within IVOA >about the document. > >I do not see the need for another level of document, a pre-Working Draft. >"Working Draft" is clear enough in name and definition. > >I believe the intent of our discussions in January was to make sure that WG >Chairs worked with the Document Coordinator to keep the document library >uncluttered, with correct cross-links, etc. > >Bob > From ael at star.le.ac.uk Thu Mar 4 09:25:21 2004 From: ael at star.le.ac.uk (Tony Linde) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 17:25:21 -0000 Subject: Identifiers 1.1 In-Reply-To: <40473BD0.4050207@eso.org> Message-ID: <200403041723.i24HNomW008109@rocky.hq.eso.org> Why would we want to remove WD from the Documents section? WD is a definite stage in the approval process and docs at WD stage must appear in the Documents area. This is a separate issue from the formatting of the docs which I believe Bob's email was about. Cheers, Tony. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-stdproc at eso.org [mailto:owner-stdproc at eso.org] On > Behalf Of Marco C. Leoni > Sent: 04 March 2004 14:23 > To: Robert Hanisch > Cc: IVOA stdproc WG > Subject: Re: Identifiers 1.1 > > Hi Bob, > this sounds like less work for the Document Coordinator: > then I agree, let's merge the two docs - Working Draft and > internal WG Draft - and remove the WD tree from the > ivoa.net/Documents section of the site. > Also, the IVOA Document Standards Recommendation needs to be > updated to reflect these changes. > > Cheers, > Marco > > > > Robert Hanisch wrote: > > >Folks, > > > > I think we've gone a bit overboard in our formatting rules here. > >There is no point in making extra work for document authors, > changing > >formats unnecessarily. If you read our agreed upon > standards process you find: > >Working Draft. A document begins as a Working Draft. A > Working Draft > >is a chartered work item of a Working Group and generally represents > >work in progress and a commitment by IVOA to pursue work in a > >particular area. The label "Working Draft" does not imply > that there > >is consensus within IVOA about the document. > > > >I do not see the need for another level of document, a > pre-Working Draft. > >"Working Draft" is clear enough in name and definition. > > > >I believe the intent of our discussions in January was to make sure > >that WG Chairs worked with the Document Coordinator to keep the > >document library uncluttered, with correct cross-links, etc. > > > >Bob > > > From hanisch at stsci.edu Tue Mar 16 07:18:40 2004 From: hanisch at stsci.edu (Robert Hanisch) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:18:40 -0500 Subject: guidelines and procedures for IVOA document management Message-ID: <00d701c40b69$f9215780$7deca782@stsci.edu> Please review the new IVOA Note entitled "Guidelines and Procedures for IVOA Document Standards Management," which can be viewed at the URL: http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/DocStdProc.html This Note attempts to capture the sense of the IVOA Executive when, at its January 2004 meeting, it asked that the IVOA document collection be tidied up and some procedures be put in place to avoid confusion between works-in-progress and published Working Drafts. I ask you particularly to comment on the following points: o We propose a version numbering system that uses the format #.##. Details are explained in the Note. This is slightly more constraining than a proposal circulated by Ray Plante a few days ago, but is hopefully easy for everyone to understand. o We ask working groups to develop new Working Drafts using a standard template, a template which helps to distinguish works-in-progress from published documents. Working Drafts are published to the IVOA document collection only when ready for wider review, and then the Document Coordinator updates formats to conform to the IVOA standards. Authors will not have to change text or formatting AT ALL as documents are promoted through the system. o We somewhat mix use of date formats, e.g., 15 March 2004 for main headings, but ISO 8601 format (2004-03-15) for time-stamps. Personally I'd prefer to use ISO 8601 throughout; it just seems to me to be a good practice. But I will not push it if others do not particularly care. Thank you, Bob Hanisch Chair, IVOA Standards and Processess Working Group From jcm at head.cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 16 07:48:06 2004 From: jcm at head.cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:48:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: guidelines and procedures for IVOA document management Message-ID: <200403161548.i2GFm6K4014552@urania.cfa.harvard.edu> Bob, I think the draft seems mostly reasonable. A couple of points: - on the format of dates like "15 Mar 2004": it has been standard in astronomy for at least a century to write "2004 Mar 15", which has the merits of being Europe/US-neutral and in the same order as ISO-8601 but more readable. - on watermarks: my own experience is that when online, it is easy enough just to go to the depository to get the latest version of the doc, the problem arises when you have a hardcopy - or, usually in my case, 15 hardcopies all slightly different - and its origin is unclear. In that case the digital watermark doesn't help. I fear adding non-trivial overhead to the process in a way that won't actually help much. I think the introduction of the Working Group Working Draft (what has been called Internal Draft up to now, which I mildly prefer) solves a lot of the problem if we are disciplined enough to use it. - Jonathan From ael at star.le.ac.uk Thu Mar 18 01:07:30 2004 From: ael at star.le.ac.uk (Tony Linde) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:07:30 -0000 Subject: Namespaces Message-ID: <200403180906.i2I96amW017029@rocky.hq.eso.org> It looks like we should quickly come up with a *standard* way of versioning namespaces. This is a little out of my field: does the following suggestion from Martin work as a standard? Or do we already have a standard? We need to namespace standard interfaces (eg SkyNode) and any of the parameters that those interfaces may take (eg ADQL as input, VOTable as output). Should we have a 'namespace' resource in the registry and use its identifier as the namespace? Cheers, Tony. -----Original Message----- From: owner-voql at eso.org [mailto:owner-voql at eso.org] On Behalf Of Wil O'Mullane Sent: 17 March 2004 14:03 To: Martin @ ROE Cc: voql at ivoa.net Subject: Re: Versioning SkyNode WSDL This is the only one we made and its an old ADQL version. Yes when we put the new adql in I will make sure we version it also. The namespace also sounds fine On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 10:14:49AM +0000, Martin @ ROE wrote: > Me again - > > Can we start to version the SkyNode WSDL? Following the links on > http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IvoaVOQL I get to > http://SkyService.pha.jhu.edu/devel/SkyNode/SkyNode.asmx?WSDL. > > However this has 'http://voql.ivoa.net/' as its namespace; can we make > this eg 'http://skynode.ivoa.net/v0.n'? > > What version are we on anyay?! > > Cheers, > > Martin > > > -- > Martin Hill > Software Engineer, AstroGrid (ROE) > 07901 55 24 66 From mleoni at eso.org Thu Mar 18 02:33:26 2004 From: mleoni at eso.org (Marco C. Leoni) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:33:26 +0100 Subject: Namespaces In-Reply-To: <200403180906.i2I96amW017029@rocky.hq.eso.org> References: <200403180906.i2I96amW017029@rocky.hq.eso.org> Message-ID: <40597AF6.8020400@eso.org> Hi Tony, actually, for the other schema in the /xml tree we are using the following: - http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOResource/v0.9 therefore the skynode should be something like: - http://www.ivoa.net/xml/SkyNode/v0.n Cheers, Marco Tony Linde wrote: >It looks like we should quickly come up with a *standard* way of versioning >namespaces. This is a little out of my field: does the following suggestion >from Martin work as a standard? Or do we already have a standard? > >We need to namespace standard interfaces (eg SkyNode) and any of the >parameters that those interfaces may take (eg ADQL as input, VOTable as >output). > >Should we have a 'namespace' resource in the registry and use its identifier >as the namespace? > >Cheers, >Tony. > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-voql at eso.org [mailto:owner-voql at eso.org] On Behalf Of Wil >O'Mullane >Sent: 17 March 2004 14:03 >To: Martin @ ROE >Cc: voql at ivoa.net >Subject: Re: Versioning SkyNode WSDL > >This is the only one we made and its an old ADQL version. >Yes when we put the new adql in I will make sure we version it also. >The namespace also sounds fine > >On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 10:14:49AM +0000, Martin @ ROE wrote: > > >>Me again - >> >>Can we start to version the SkyNode WSDL? Following the links on >>http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IvoaVOQL I get to >>http://SkyService.pha.jhu.edu/devel/SkyNode/SkyNode.asmx?WSDL. >> >>However this has 'http://voql.ivoa.net/' as its namespace; can we make >>this eg 'http://skynode.ivoa.net/v0.n'? >> >>What version are we on anyay?! >> >>Cheers, >> >>Martin >> >> >>-- >>Martin Hill >>Software Engineer, AstroGrid (ROE) >>07901 55 24 66 >> From mchill at dial.pipex.com Thu Mar 18 03:01:08 2004 From: mchill at dial.pipex.com (Martin Hill) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:01:08 +0000 Subject: Namespaces In-Reply-To: <40597AF6.8020400@eso.org> References: <200403180906.i2I96amW017029@rocky.hq.eso.org> <40597AF6.8020400@eso.org> Message-ID: <40598174.2050009@dial.pipex.com> That makes sense; in fact we can extend it a little so that the namespace can then correspond to the location of the schema: http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOResource/v0.9/VOResource.xsd http://www.ivoa.net/xml/SkyNode/v0.n/SkyNode.wsdl Which I believe is the industry convention? Seems a bit daft having the 'http://www.' prefix for a namespace, but that's conventions for you... Marco C. Leoni wrote: > Hi Tony, > > actually, for the other schema in the /xml tree we are using the following: > - http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOResource/v0.9 > > therefore the skynode should be something like: > - http://www.ivoa.net/xml/SkyNode/v0.n > > > Cheers, > Marco > > > > > Tony Linde wrote: > >> It looks like we should quickly come up with a *standard* way of >> versioning >> namespaces. This is a little out of my field: does the following >> suggestion >> from Martin work as a standard? Or do we already have a standard? >> We need to namespace standard interfaces (eg SkyNode) and any of the >> parameters that those interfaces may take (eg ADQL as input, VOTable as >> output). >> >> Should we have a 'namespace' resource in the registry and use its >> identifier >> as the namespace? >> >> Cheers, >> Tony. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-voql at eso.org [mailto:owner-voql at eso.org] On Behalf Of Wil >> O'Mullane >> Sent: 17 March 2004 14:03 >> To: Martin @ ROE >> Cc: voql at ivoa.net >> Subject: Re: Versioning SkyNode WSDL >> >> This is the only one we made and its an old ADQL version. >> Yes when we put the new adql in I will make sure we version it also. >> The namespace also sounds fine >> >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 10:14:49AM +0000, Martin @ ROE wrote: >> >> >>> Me again - >>> >>> Can we start to version the SkyNode WSDL? Following the links on >>> http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IvoaVOQL I get to >>> http://SkyService.pha.jhu.edu/devel/SkyNode/SkyNode.asmx?WSDL. >>> >>> However this has 'http://voql.ivoa.net/' as its namespace; can we >>> make this eg 'http://skynode.ivoa.net/v0.n'? >>> >>> What version are we on anyay?! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Martin Hill >>> Software Engineer, AstroGrid (ROE) >>> 07901 55 24 66 >>> > > From mleoni at eso.org Thu Mar 18 04:30:49 2004 From: mleoni at eso.org (Marco C. Leoni) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:30:49 +0100 Subject: Namespaces In-Reply-To: <40598174.2050009@dial.pipex.com> References: <200403180906.i2I96amW017029@rocky.hq.eso.org> <40597AF6.8020400@eso.org> <40598174.2050009@dial.pipex.com> Message-ID: <40599679.1030701@eso.org> The namespace already correspond to the location of the schema, i.e. http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOResource/v0.9 is a real (schema) file. That's why there is the "http://www" prefix. Marco Martin Hill wrote: > That makes sense; in fact we can extend it a little so that the > namespace can then correspond to the location of the schema: > > http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOResource/v0.9/VOResource.xsd > http://www.ivoa.net/xml/SkyNode/v0.n/SkyNode.wsdl > > Which I believe is the industry convention? Seems a bit daft having > the 'http://www.' prefix for a namespace, but that's conventions for > you... > > > > Marco C. Leoni wrote: > >> Hi Tony, >> >> actually, for the other schema in the /xml tree we are using the >> following: >> - http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOResource/v0.9 >> >> therefore the skynode should be something like: >> - http://www.ivoa.net/xml/SkyNode/v0.n >> >> >> Cheers, >> Marco >> >> >> >> >> Tony Linde wrote: >> >>> It looks like we should quickly come up with a *standard* way of >>> versioning >>> namespaces. This is a little out of my field: does the following >>> suggestion >>> from Martin work as a standard? Or do we already have a standard? >>> We need to namespace standard interfaces (eg SkyNode) and any of the >>> parameters that those interfaces may take (eg ADQL as input, VOTable as >>> output). >>> >>> Should we have a 'namespace' resource in the registry and use its >>> identifier >>> as the namespace? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Tony. -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-voql at eso.org [mailto:owner-voql at eso.org] On Behalf Of Wil >>> O'Mullane >>> Sent: 17 March 2004 14:03 >>> To: Martin @ ROE >>> Cc: voql at ivoa.net >>> Subject: Re: Versioning SkyNode WSDL >>> >>> This is the only one we made and its an old ADQL version. >>> Yes when we put the new adql in I will make sure we version it also. >>> The namespace also sounds fine >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 10:14:49AM +0000, Martin @ ROE wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Me again - >>>> >>>> Can we start to version the SkyNode WSDL? Following the links on >>>> http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IvoaVOQL I get to >>>> http://SkyService.pha.jhu.edu/devel/SkyNode/SkyNode.asmx?WSDL. >>>> >>>> However this has 'http://voql.ivoa.net/' as its namespace; can we >>>> make this eg 'http://skynode.ivoa.net/v0.n'? >>>> >>>> What version are we on anyay?! >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Martin Hill >>>> Software Engineer, AstroGrid (ROE) >>>> 07901 55 24 66 >>> From rplante at poplar.ncsa.uiuc.edu Wed Mar 31 13:22:11 2004 From: rplante at poplar.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Ray Plante) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:22:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: version numbers Message-ID: Hi Bob, Markus, Marco, I know I should have said something earlier, so feel free to say, "it's too late to change it." Thanks for the acknowledgement in the Guidelines Note regarding version numbers; however, you modified my suggestion in toward a direction I was trying to get away from. The convention of having 0.21 come between 0.2 and 0.22 has a real problem: you only get ten revisions of a particular level. What comes after 0.99 if you are not ready for 1.0? 0.991? Or are you out of luck? The result is that you no longer have a sense of how major a change the revision is. The point of *my* saying "fields on either side of the period (.) are integers" is to say that 3 comes between 2 and 4, and 21 come between 20 and 22. All increments between a set of periods are considered the same level of change. This is how RCS, CVS, and probably most other revision control systems work. cheers, Ray From mleoni at eso.org Wed Mar 31 23:37:18 2004 From: mleoni at eso.org (Marco C. Leoni) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 09:37:18 +0200 Subject: version numbers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <406BC6AE.2060905@eso.org> Hi Ray, the "simplification" of version numbering came from some thoughts about document process: - do we really need 10000 versions in between ver. 0.1 and the first published WD (i.e. ver. 1.0)? - the documents process does not take into account the xml files et similia: they are "supplementary resources" that means you can follow your preferred numbering schema (CVS, RCS, VSS, etc.). Cheers, Marco Ray Plante wrote: >Hi Bob, Markus, Marco, > >I know I should have said something earlier, so feel free to say, "it's >too late to change it." > >Thanks for the acknowledgement in the Guidelines Note regarding version >numbers; however, you modified my suggestion in toward a direction I was >trying to get away from. The convention of having 0.21 come between 0.2 >and 0.22 has a real problem: you only get ten revisions of a particular >level. What comes after 0.99 if you are not ready for 1.0? 0.991? Or >are you out of luck? The result is that you no longer have a sense of how >major a change the revision is. > >The point of *my* saying "fields on either side of the period (.) are >integers" is to say that 3 comes between 2 and 4, and 21 come between 20 >and 22. All increments between a set of periods are considered the same >level of change. > >This is how RCS, CVS, and probably most other revision control systems >work. > >cheers, >Ray > From mleoni at eso.org Thu Mar 4 06:23:12 2004 From: mleoni at eso.org (Marco C. Leoni) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:23:12 +0100 Subject: Identifiers 1.1 In-Reply-To: <001501c401f0$915608d0$7deca782@stsci.edu> References: <4046EA3F.6030500@eso.org> <001501c401f0$915608d0$7deca782@stsci.edu> Message-ID: <40473BD0.4050207@eso.org> Hi Bob, this sounds like less work for the Document Coordinator: then I agree, let's merge the two docs - Working Draft and internal WG Draft - and remove the WD tree from the ivoa.net/Documents section of the site. Also, the IVOA Document Standards Recommendation needs to be updated to reflect these changes. Cheers, Marco Robert Hanisch wrote: >Folks, > > I think we've gone a bit overboard in our formatting rules here. There is >no point in making extra work for document authors, changing formats >unnecessarily. If you read our agreed upon standards process you find: >Working Draft. A document begins as a Working Draft. A Working Draft is a >chartered work item of a Working Group and generally represents work in >progress and a commitment by IVOA to pursue work in a particular area. The >label "Working Draft" does not imply that there is consensus within IVOA >about the document. > >I do not see the need for another level of document, a pre-Working Draft. >"Working Draft" is clear enough in name and definition. > >I believe the intent of our discussions in January was to make sure that WG >Chairs worked with the Document Coordinator to keep the document library >uncluttered, with correct cross-links, etc. > >Bob > From ael at star.le.ac.uk Thu Mar 4 09:25:21 2004 From: ael at star.le.ac.uk (Tony Linde) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 17:25:21 -0000 Subject: Identifiers 1.1 In-Reply-To: <40473BD0.4050207@eso.org> Message-ID: <200403041723.i24HNomW008109@rocky.hq.eso.org> Why would we want to remove WD from the Documents section? WD is a definite stage in the approval process and docs at WD stage must appear in the Documents area. This is a separate issue from the formatting of the docs which I believe Bob's email was about. Cheers, Tony. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-stdproc at eso.org [mailto:owner-stdproc at eso.org] On > Behalf Of Marco C. Leoni > Sent: 04 March 2004 14:23 > To: Robert Hanisch > Cc: IVOA stdproc WG > Subject: Re: Identifiers 1.1 > > Hi Bob, > this sounds like less work for the Document Coordinator: > then I agree, let's merge the two docs - Working Draft and > internal WG Draft - and remove the WD tree from the > ivoa.net/Documents section of the site. > Also, the IVOA Document Standards Recommendation needs to be > updated to reflect these changes. > > Cheers, > Marco > > > > Robert Hanisch wrote: > > >Folks, > > > > I think we've gone a bit overboard in our formatting rules here. > >There is no point in making extra work for document authors, > changing > >formats unnecessarily. If you read our agreed upon > standards process you find: > >Working Draft. A document begins as a Working Draft. A > Working Draft > >is a chartered work item of a Working Group and generally represents > >work in progress and a commitment by IVOA to pursue work in a > >particular area. The label "Working Draft" does not imply > that there > >is consensus within IVOA about the document. > > > >I do not see the need for another level of document, a > pre-Working Draft. > >"Working Draft" is clear enough in name and definition. > > > >I believe the intent of our discussions in January was to make sure > >that WG Chairs worked with the Document Coordinator to keep the > >document library uncluttered, with correct cross-links, etc. > > > >Bob > > > From hanisch at stsci.edu Tue Mar 16 07:18:40 2004 From: hanisch at stsci.edu (Robert Hanisch) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:18:40 -0500 Subject: guidelines and procedures for IVOA document management Message-ID: <00d701c40b69$f9215780$7deca782@stsci.edu> Please review the new IVOA Note entitled "Guidelines and Procedures for IVOA Document Standards Management," which can be viewed at the URL: http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/DocStdProc.html This Note attempts to capture the sense of the IVOA Executive when, at its January 2004 meeting, it asked that the IVOA document collection be tidied up and some procedures be put in place to avoid confusion between works-in-progress and published Working Drafts. I ask you particularly to comment on the following points: o We propose a version numbering system that uses the format #.##. Details are explained in the Note. This is slightly more constraining than a proposal circulated by Ray Plante a few days ago, but is hopefully easy for everyone to understand. o We ask working groups to develop new Working Drafts using a standard template, a template which helps to distinguish works-in-progress from published documents. Working Drafts are published to the IVOA document collection only when ready for wider review, and then the Document Coordinator updates formats to conform to the IVOA standards. Authors will not have to change text or formatting AT ALL as documents are promoted through the system. o We somewhat mix use of date formats, e.g., 15 March 2004 for main headings, but ISO 8601 format (2004-03-15) for time-stamps. Personally I'd prefer to use ISO 8601 throughout; it just seems to me to be a good practice. But I will not push it if others do not particularly care. Thank you, Bob Hanisch Chair, IVOA Standards and Processess Working Group From jcm at head.cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 16 07:48:06 2004 From: jcm at head.cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:48:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: guidelines and procedures for IVOA document management Message-ID: <200403161548.i2GFm6K4014552@urania.cfa.harvard.edu> Bob, I think the draft seems mostly reasonable. A couple of points: - on the format of dates like "15 Mar 2004": it has been standard in astronomy for at least a century to write "2004 Mar 15", which has the merits of being Europe/US-neutral and in the same order as ISO-8601 but more readable. - on watermarks: my own experience is that when online, it is easy enough just to go to the depository to get the latest version of the doc, the problem arises when you have a hardcopy - or, usually in my case, 15 hardcopies all slightly different - and its origin is unclear. In that case the digital watermark doesn't help. I fear adding non-trivial overhead to the process in a way that won't actually help much. I think the introduction of the Working Group Working Draft (what has been called Internal Draft up to now, which I mildly prefer) solves a lot of the problem if we are disciplined enough to use it. - Jonathan From ael at star.le.ac.uk Thu Mar 18 01:07:30 2004 From: ael at star.le.ac.uk (Tony Linde) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:07:30 -0000 Subject: Namespaces Message-ID: <200403180906.i2I96amW017029@rocky.hq.eso.org> It looks like we should quickly come up with a *standard* way of versioning namespaces. This is a little out of my field: does the following suggestion from Martin work as a standard? Or do we already have a standard? We need to namespace standard interfaces (eg SkyNode) and any of the parameters that those interfaces may take (eg ADQL as input, VOTable as output). Should we have a 'namespace' resource in the registry and use its identifier as the namespace? Cheers, Tony. -----Original Message----- From: owner-voql at eso.org [mailto:owner-voql at eso.org] On Behalf Of Wil O'Mullane Sent: 17 March 2004 14:03 To: Martin @ ROE Cc: voql at ivoa.net Subject: Re: Versioning SkyNode WSDL This is the only one we made and its an old ADQL version. Yes when we put the new adql in I will make sure we version it also. The namespace also sounds fine On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 10:14:49AM +0000, Martin @ ROE wrote: > Me again - > > Can we start to version the SkyNode WSDL? Following the links on > http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IvoaVOQL I get to > http://SkyService.pha.jhu.edu/devel/SkyNode/SkyNode.asmx?WSDL. > > However this has 'http://voql.ivoa.net/' as its namespace; can we make > this eg 'http://skynode.ivoa.net/v0.n'? > > What version are we on anyay?! > > Cheers, > > Martin > > > -- > Martin Hill > Software Engineer, AstroGrid (ROE) > 07901 55 24 66 From mleoni at eso.org Thu Mar 18 02:33:26 2004 From: mleoni at eso.org (Marco C. Leoni) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:33:26 +0100 Subject: Namespaces In-Reply-To: <200403180906.i2I96amW017029@rocky.hq.eso.org> References: <200403180906.i2I96amW017029@rocky.hq.eso.org> Message-ID: <40597AF6.8020400@eso.org> Hi Tony, actually, for the other schema in the /xml tree we are using the following: - http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOResource/v0.9 therefore the skynode should be something like: - http://www.ivoa.net/xml/SkyNode/v0.n Cheers, Marco Tony Linde wrote: >It looks like we should quickly come up with a *standard* way of versioning >namespaces. This is a little out of my field: does the following suggestion >from Martin work as a standard? Or do we already have a standard? > >We need to namespace standard interfaces (eg SkyNode) and any of the >parameters that those interfaces may take (eg ADQL as input, VOTable as >output). > >Should we have a 'namespace' resource in the registry and use its identifier >as the namespace? > >Cheers, >Tony. > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-voql at eso.org [mailto:owner-voql at eso.org] On Behalf Of Wil >O'Mullane >Sent: 17 March 2004 14:03 >To: Martin @ ROE >Cc: voql at ivoa.net >Subject: Re: Versioning SkyNode WSDL > >This is the only one we made and its an old ADQL version. >Yes when we put the new adql in I will make sure we version it also. >The namespace also sounds fine > >On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 10:14:49AM +0000, Martin @ ROE wrote: > > >>Me again - >> >>Can we start to version the SkyNode WSDL? Following the links on >>http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IvoaVOQL I get to >>http://SkyService.pha.jhu.edu/devel/SkyNode/SkyNode.asmx?WSDL. >> >>However this has 'http://voql.ivoa.net/' as its namespace; can we make >>this eg 'http://skynode.ivoa.net/v0.n'? >> >>What version are we on anyay?! >> >>Cheers, >> >>Martin >> >> >>-- >>Martin Hill >>Software Engineer, AstroGrid (ROE) >>07901 55 24 66 >> From mchill at dial.pipex.com Thu Mar 18 03:01:08 2004 From: mchill at dial.pipex.com (Martin Hill) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:01:08 +0000 Subject: Namespaces In-Reply-To: <40597AF6.8020400@eso.org> References: <200403180906.i2I96amW017029@rocky.hq.eso.org> <40597AF6.8020400@eso.org> Message-ID: <40598174.2050009@dial.pipex.com> That makes sense; in fact we can extend it a little so that the namespace can then correspond to the location of the schema: http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOResource/v0.9/VOResource.xsd http://www.ivoa.net/xml/SkyNode/v0.n/SkyNode.wsdl Which I believe is the industry convention? Seems a bit daft having the 'http://www.' prefix for a namespace, but that's conventions for you... Marco C. Leoni wrote: > Hi Tony, > > actually, for the other schema in the /xml tree we are using the following: > - http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOResource/v0.9 > > therefore the skynode should be something like: > - http://www.ivoa.net/xml/SkyNode/v0.n > > > Cheers, > Marco > > > > > Tony Linde wrote: > >> It looks like we should quickly come up with a *standard* way of >> versioning >> namespaces. This is a little out of my field: does the following >> suggestion >> from Martin work as a standard? Or do we already have a standard? >> We need to namespace standard interfaces (eg SkyNode) and any of the >> parameters that those interfaces may take (eg ADQL as input, VOTable as >> output). >> >> Should we have a 'namespace' resource in the registry and use its >> identifier >> as the namespace? >> >> Cheers, >> Tony. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-voql at eso.org [mailto:owner-voql at eso.org] On Behalf Of Wil >> O'Mullane >> Sent: 17 March 2004 14:03 >> To: Martin @ ROE >> Cc: voql at ivoa.net >> Subject: Re: Versioning SkyNode WSDL >> >> This is the only one we made and its an old ADQL version. >> Yes when we put the new adql in I will make sure we version it also. >> The namespace also sounds fine >> >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 10:14:49AM +0000, Martin @ ROE wrote: >> >> >>> Me again - >>> >>> Can we start to version the SkyNode WSDL? Following the links on >>> http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IvoaVOQL I get to >>> http://SkyService.pha.jhu.edu/devel/SkyNode/SkyNode.asmx?WSDL. >>> >>> However this has 'http://voql.ivoa.net/' as its namespace; can we >>> make this eg 'http://skynode.ivoa.net/v0.n'? >>> >>> What version are we on anyay?! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Martin Hill >>> Software Engineer, AstroGrid (ROE) >>> 07901 55 24 66 >>> > > From mleoni at eso.org Thu Mar 18 04:30:49 2004 From: mleoni at eso.org (Marco C. Leoni) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:30:49 +0100 Subject: Namespaces In-Reply-To: <40598174.2050009@dial.pipex.com> References: <200403180906.i2I96amW017029@rocky.hq.eso.org> <40597AF6.8020400@eso.org> <40598174.2050009@dial.pipex.com> Message-ID: <40599679.1030701@eso.org> The namespace already correspond to the location of the schema, i.e. http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOResource/v0.9 is a real (schema) file. That's why there is the "http://www" prefix. Marco Martin Hill wrote: > That makes sense; in fact we can extend it a little so that the > namespace can then correspond to the location of the schema: > > http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOResource/v0.9/VOResource.xsd > http://www.ivoa.net/xml/SkyNode/v0.n/SkyNode.wsdl > > Which I believe is the industry convention? Seems a bit daft having > the 'http://www.' prefix for a namespace, but that's conventions for > you... > > > > Marco C. Leoni wrote: > >> Hi Tony, >> >> actually, for the other schema in the /xml tree we are using the >> following: >> - http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOResource/v0.9 >> >> therefore the skynode should be something like: >> - http://www.ivoa.net/xml/SkyNode/v0.n >> >> >> Cheers, >> Marco >> >> >> >> >> Tony Linde wrote: >> >>> It looks like we should quickly come up with a *standard* way of >>> versioning >>> namespaces. This is a little out of my field: does the following >>> suggestion >>> from Martin work as a standard? Or do we already have a standard? >>> We need to namespace standard interfaces (eg SkyNode) and any of the >>> parameters that those interfaces may take (eg ADQL as input, VOTable as >>> output). >>> >>> Should we have a 'namespace' resource in the registry and use its >>> identifier >>> as the namespace? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Tony. -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-voql at eso.org [mailto:owner-voql at eso.org] On Behalf Of Wil >>> O'Mullane >>> Sent: 17 March 2004 14:03 >>> To: Martin @ ROE >>> Cc: voql at ivoa.net >>> Subject: Re: Versioning SkyNode WSDL >>> >>> This is the only one we made and its an old ADQL version. >>> Yes when we put the new adql in I will make sure we version it also. >>> The namespace also sounds fine >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 10:14:49AM +0000, Martin @ ROE wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Me again - >>>> >>>> Can we start to version the SkyNode WSDL? Following the links on >>>> http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IvoaVOQL I get to >>>> http://SkyService.pha.jhu.edu/devel/SkyNode/SkyNode.asmx?WSDL. >>>> >>>> However this has 'http://voql.ivoa.net/' as its namespace; can we >>>> make this eg 'http://skynode.ivoa.net/v0.n'? >>>> >>>> What version are we on anyay?! >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Martin Hill >>>> Software Engineer, AstroGrid (ROE) >>>> 07901 55 24 66 >>> From rplante at poplar.ncsa.uiuc.edu Wed Mar 31 13:22:11 2004 From: rplante at poplar.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Ray Plante) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:22:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: version numbers Message-ID: Hi Bob, Markus, Marco, I know I should have said something earlier, so feel free to say, "it's too late to change it." Thanks for the acknowledgement in the Guidelines Note regarding version numbers; however, you modified my suggestion in toward a direction I was trying to get away from. The convention of having 0.21 come between 0.2 and 0.22 has a real problem: you only get ten revisions of a particular level. What comes after 0.99 if you are not ready for 1.0? 0.991? Or are you out of luck? The result is that you no longer have a sense of how major a change the revision is. The point of *my* saying "fields on either side of the period (.) are integers" is to say that 3 comes between 2 and 4, and 21 come between 20 and 22. All increments between a set of periods are considered the same level of change. This is how RCS, CVS, and probably most other revision control systems work. cheers, Ray From mleoni at eso.org Wed Mar 31 23:37:18 2004 From: mleoni at eso.org (Marco C. Leoni) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 09:37:18 +0200 Subject: version numbers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <406BC6AE.2060905@eso.org> Hi Ray, the "simplification" of version numbering came from some thoughts about document process: - do we really need 10000 versions in between ver. 0.1 and the first published WD (i.e. ver. 1.0)? - the documents process does not take into account the xml files et similia: they are "supplementary resources" that means you can follow your preferred numbering schema (CVS, RCS, VSS, etc.). Cheers, Marco Ray Plante wrote: >Hi Bob, Markus, Marco, > >I know I should have said something earlier, so feel free to say, "it's >too late to change it." > >Thanks for the acknowledgement in the Guidelines Note regarding version >numbers; however, you modified my suggestion in toward a direction I was >trying to get away from. The convention of having 0.21 come between 0.2 >and 0.22 has a real problem: you only get ten revisions of a particular >level. What comes after 0.99 if you are not ready for 1.0? 0.991? Or >are you out of luck? The result is that you no longer have a sense of how >major a change the revision is. > >The point of *my* saying "fields on either side of the period (.) are >integers" is to say that 3 comes between 2 and 4, and 21 come between 20 >and 22. All increments between a set of periods are considered the same >level of change. > >This is how RCS, CVS, and probably most other revision control systems >work. > >cheers, >Ray >