[iaufwg] INHERIT convention

[Robert Hanisch]

I agree with Mark and Clive's latest postings, though I still am concerned
that some developers will take the presence of a convention in the registry
as an implicit stamp of approval.  That is why I want a way to convey the
sense of the FWG in the registry.  Yes, this exists.  Yes, it is legal.  Um,
it has problems you should be aware of.

Mark, in his usual incisive style, states it perfectly: " It seems to me
that INHERIT exploits a loophole in the standard that will cause
difficulties for general FITS readers.  That should be noted."

And I would like for the registry to be able to note such things at a
visible level.  I was sorry to see that Lucio disagreed with me on this,
since virtually everything he has ever written to FITSBITS or this group I
have been in concord with.

Ok, this is my last word on this.  I think INHERIT should be included in the
registry of conventions.  I think it should be noted at the top level of
documentation, on the web site and not just in the document, that it may
cause problems for FITS readers unaware of the convention.  I think the FWG
should be able to add such comments for other conventions, since there is no
other review or validation mechanism other than the FWG.  I do not accept
the view that this body is incapable of making relevant observations on such
matters.

Fine.  (The End)
Bob


On 4/10/07 8:28 PM, "Mark Calabretta" <mcalabre at atnf.CSIRO.AU> wrote:

> 
> On Tue 2007/04/10 09:12:05 MST, "Dick Shaw" wrote
> in a message to: iaufwg at nrao.edu
> 
>> 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
> 
> That was also my understanding, i.e. that we were only required to
> validate the adequacy of the documentation, not the adequacy of the
> convention itself, that being the essential difference between a
> convention and a standard.
> 
> Thus, if a significant body of data has been written in the guise of
> "FITS" then any convention it uses should be documented.
> 
> If the convention violates the standard, whether unwittingly or not,
> then that should be noted.
> 
> If it is likely to cause problems for general FITS interpreters then
> that should also be noted.
> 
> While technically INHERIT may not violate the FITS standard, it must
> also be understood that the FITS standard was not written as a piece
> of loophole-free legislation.  It seems to me that INHERIT exploits a
> loophole in the standard that will cause difficulties for general
> FITS readers.  That should be noted.
> 
> Cheers, Mark
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iaufwg mailing list
> iaufwg at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/iaufwg