Create VOTable.vor per Issue #7 "No .vor record for inclusion of VOTable standard in RofR"

ivoa-std / VOTable

VOTable Format Definition

4 stars 15 forks source link

Create VOTable.vor per Issue #7 "No .vor record for inclusion of VOTable standard in RofR" #8

Closed theresadower closed 4 years ago

theresadower commented 4 years ago

https://github.com/ivoa-std/VOTable/issues/7 No .vor record for inclusion of VOTable standard in RofR

Creating baseline VOTable.vor file.

Note: On the IVOA documents page, http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOTable/1.4 does not work (however http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOTable/1.3 forwards to 1.4 correctly). Thus I directly referenced http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOTable/VOTable-1.4.xsd instead of the usual shortened v1.4. What should change here?

theresadower commented 4 years ago

This could still be improved by adding additional date/revision history btw, but as a first pass it exists now. Would appreciate a review by any other registry/VOResource experts.

tomdonaldson commented 4 years ago

Thanks @theresadower. @msdemlei would you care to take a look before I approve this?

msdemlei commented 4 years ago

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 12:44:29PM -0700, Tom wrote:

Thanks @theresadower. @msdemlei would you care to take a look before I approve this?

As could be expected, I have two items of nitpicking:

I'd say the title should reflect the current title of the document, as in "VOTable Format Definition"
I'm not sure where @created and @updated come from, but they look like they might come a template. While there are not many use cases for them, I'd still suggest to make them reflect reality, and so I'd prefer if they'd point into May 2020. That the date[@role="update"] is after that doesn't hurt, as that's metadata for the resource, not the resource record (we tend to not make that distinction normally, but for date it's important).

I like the description part on the schema. Perhaps I need to go back to some of the other .vors and make sure that has some sensible text.

theresadower commented 4 years ago

@msdemlei ah good catch, the created/updated were in fact from another existing .vor record I had used as a template. I've fixed that and expanded the title. Thank you!

I'd originally set the date-role as the document date for 1.4 itself, rather than for the resource. In the future as we catch up with .vor records existing these should match but I wanted to reflect reality. I suppose it would be even better to have a more complete date list, for the final accepted versions, perhaps?

msdemlei commented 4 years ago

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 06:07:30AM -0700, theresa dower wrote:

@msdemlei ah good catch, the created/updated were in fact from another existing .vor record I had used as a template. I've fixed that and expanded the title. Thank you!

I'd originally set the date-role as the document date for 1.4 itself, rather than for the resource. In the future as we catch up with .vor records existing these should match but I wanted to reflect reality. I suppose it would be even better to have a more complete date list, for the final accepted versions, perhaps?

As long as we don't have a clear use case for this, frankly, I'd not bother.