[iaufwg] INHERIT convention

[Dick Shaw]

Hi Bob,

I have to admit that I don't understand what you are asking the WG to do. We 
agreed some months back to support the idea of a registry of FITS conventions; 
as I understood it, the main idea was to provide a clearing house of 
information about FITS usage in the community. It was not, as I recall, 
established to be a filter for conventions that have been in any way blessed 
by the IAUFWG. Also, the existing rules for submitting a convention to the 
registry, and the criteria by which they are judged, do not provide for 
objections based on whether the practice is in some way flawed. In the case of 
the INHERIT convention, it is pretty clear that it complies with the FITS 
standard, that datasets using this convention have been been produced in great 
number and for a long while, and that the submitters have followed the posted 
rules. In my view, the description of the convention is very well written, and 
describes the disadvantages very clearly.

So my question is: are you suggesting that the rules for acceptance of 
conventions into the registry be changed? I agree with you that the presence 
of a convention in a registry that is maintained by the IAUFWG does more than 
document FITS usage: it can also, for example, encourage designers of data 
formats for new instruments to consider using these conventions. But I don't 
see a way around that--after all, data engineers can discover conventions 
whether we document them or not. I do not believe an uncontrolled forum for 
collecting comments would amount to anything more than a blog. I am worried, 
though, that a more formal review process would consume a lot of our time for 
very little gain.

Regards,
Dick

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:12:29 -0400
  Robert Hanisch <hanisch at stsci.edu> wrote:
> Hi Walter.  I have to say I disagree with you on this.  In the case of these
> conventions, there really is no one else looking at them.  The regional FITS
> committees are not involved in their review and endorsement.  And, sorry to
> repeat myself, but despite the caveats on the website, I believe that the
> presence of a convention in the FWG registry does convey a certain
> imprimatur.  There are a lot of things people can do that are legal FITS but
> bad ideas, and I don't think the FWG should recognize conventions simply
> because they do not break any rules.
> 
> That said, I do agree with your second paragraph (but am neutral as to the
> mechanism for collection and dissemination of comments).  A simple solution
> might be to add something to the registry such as "Comments and
> Recommendations" which would contain remarks from the FWG and perhaps a link
> to further discussion in a mail list or blog or whatever.
> 
> Bob
> 
> On 4/10/07 6:01 AM, "Walter Jaffe" <jaffe at strw.leidenuniv.nl> wrote:
> 
>> I will avoid discussing the optimum structures for transmitting data bases
>> and confine myself to the role of the iaufwg in reviewing conventions.
>> 
>> I don't think that it is feasible for the iaufwg to make deep reviews
>> of the proposed conventions, and then expect or require the proposers
>> to "improve" the submission.  I think the review should confine itself
>> to whether the proposal is formally consistent with the FITS standards
>> and whether it meets the basic criteria for a convention:
>> it has an application, it is reasonably stable, and it is sufficiently
>> well documented that others can use it.
>> 
>> This begs the question of whether the expertise present in the iaufwg
>> can be used in fact to improve the convention.  While this is probably
>> desirable, I would separate this from the reviewing procedure.  We might
>> attach a blog and a revision history to each convention.  In the first
>> case people both in- and outside the iaufwg can make suggestions for
>> improvements and point out hazards inherent in the convention. The
>> second would document those changes that the authors have made.
>> 
>> Walter