[iaufwg] FITS Registry - ready to go public?

[William Pence]

There is no question that the Greenbank convention, and many other 
conventions that have been in widespread use for many years, should be 
entered into the Registry, however, I think it would be good for all the 
conventions to go though the same public comment and review procedure as 
outlined at http://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/fits_registry_rules.html.  The main 
purpose of this approval procedure is not to judge the convention itself, 
but instead, to review the documentation about the convention, to make sure 
it is clear and complete.  So someone just needs to write up a description 
of each of these conventions and submit it for review.

A second reason for not having a special "grandfathered" category of 
conventions is it would be complicated deciding which conventions qualify 
for this distinction.  It will be much simpler to treat all the conventions 
in the same way and have them all go through the same simple approval process.

Bill

Don Wells wrote:
> Steve Allen wrote:
>> On Fri 2006-06-16T15:59:32 -0400, William Pence hath writ:
>>   
>>> I've now put together a web page for the "Registry of FITS Conventions" at
>>> http://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/fits_registry.html
>>>     
>>
>> "no conventions have yet been approved"
>>
>> Does the Greenbank Convention fit the criteria, and if so,
>> shouldn't it be grandfathered into this?
> 
> I second the motion to 'grandfather' the Greenbank Convention.
> 
> I also nominate the two conventions which I cited in a posting on 
> 2006-03-23:
> (1) FITS-IDI
> <http://www.cv.nrao.edu/fits/documents/drafts/idi-format.html>
> (2) OI Exchange Format (OI-FITS)
> <http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0508/0508185.pdf>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0508/0508185.pdf
> 
> -Don