[iaufwg] FITS Registry Proposal

[Doug Tody]

Hi Bill -

I think we need to make a clear distinction between FITS standards and
conventions.  The practice has always been that anyone is allowed to
define a convention which extends the standard, for use in a particular
application domain.  Our main purpose with a registry of conventions should
be to list and describe these conventions so that people know about them.
I don't think we should try to control the quality of conventions or we
are starting to duplicate the standards process.

With these goals in mind I think the proposed process described is too
strict.  People will continue to define and use their conventions regardless
of what we do or whether we approve of them.  My suggestion is to reduce
the requirements for registration to the minimum, e.g.: the necessary
information is provided, the convention is adequately documentated, and
it can be demonstrated to have one or more implementations and be actually
used in operational software.  Other issues, for example if two conventions
provide similar functionality, should not be our concern or we start to
get duplicate the standards process.  In fact, since conventions are not
yet standards it should explicitly be possible to change them or define
a competing convention to address perceived deficiencies.

 	- Doug


On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, William Pence wrote:

> Dear IAU FITS Working Group Members,
>
> One of the most important activities I hope we can accomplish soon is to set 
> up, and begin to populate, a Registry of FITS Conventions.  Last September I 
> distributed a straw-man proposal for how the Registry might work.  This has 
> recently been updated and the new version is available for your review and 
> comment at
>
> http://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/fits_registry.html
>
> My hope is that we can agree on the final set of rules within the next few 
> weeks, and then begin the approval process for a few conventions prior to the 
> IAU meeting in Prague in August.
>
> I'm especially interested in whether you think the list of requirements is 
> complete and comprehensive, and whether the approval process is reasonable. 
> One of my concerns is that the rules should be clear and deterministic enough 
> so that there is never any ambiguity in how to proceed, and yet not so rigid 
> and cumbersome that it will discourage people from making submissions to the 
> Registry.
>
> regards,
> Bill
> -- 
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Dr. William Pence                       pence at milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov
> NASA/GSFC Code 662       HEASARC        +1-301-286-4599 (voice)
> Greenbelt MD 20771                      +1-301-286-1684 (fax)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iaufwg mailing list
> iaufwg at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/iaufwg
>