[iaufwg] approval of the 'FOREIGN' extension convention

[Dick Shaw]

For the record, I agree with Mark that if a convention is offered for 
inclusion in the FITS registry, those who offer it ought also to provide clear 
and up-to-date documentation, particularly if the convention is still in use 
(as it is in this case). In my reading of the (few-page) document on the 
Foreign extensions, I can't imagine needing much effort to make it current. I 
think there is considerable value to the rest of the community to make the 
supporting documents clear.

I have a belated suggestion for the registry, which in a convoluted way 
relates to the latest suggestion in this thread. Namely, it would be of value 
to record the extent to which each convention is used within the community. 
(This info could be offered up-front and/or augmented over time after 
approval.) If I were considering using a convention for a project, I might be 
more persuaded if multiple, large institutions were using it in day-to-day 
operations than if it's use were restricted to a small, one-off project.

Cheers,
Dick

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:34:06 -0500
  William Pence <pence at milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Mark Calabretta wrote:
>> I thought the idea was that the documentation was to be checked for
>> correctness and completeness.  But now you appear to be saying that
>> deficiencies are not worth rectifying.  So what is the point of putting
>> these documents up for discussion?
> 
> Since the FITS Registry depends on voluntary contributions, I think we 
> sometimes just have to accept the best documentation that people are 
> willing to provide, even if it has deficiencies.  If a new project 
> decides to adopt this old FOREIGN convention for new data, then perhaps 
> they can be persuaded to provide an updated document that clarifies some 
> of the issues that have been raised.  Otherwise, there is not much point 
> in debating the fine points of a convention if it not going to be used.
> 
> Eric Greisen made a good suggestion to me off line that we provide a 
> mechanism for adding comments or queries about a convention in the 
> Registry.  Future users of the convention could also add more comments 
> about how they have interpreted the convention should be used.   A 
> simple way to do this is to just add an HTML link to a page titled 
> "Further comments about the convention".  In the case of the FOREIGN 
> convention, this page could contain a copy of all the IAUFWG email 
> discussions about the convention.
> 
> Bill

#---
Dr. Richard A. Shaw, Scientist
National Optical Astronomy Observatory
950 N. Cherry Avenue
Tucson, AZ  85719
USA
520-318-8398