[iaufwg] approval of the 'FOREIGN' extension convention

[Robert Hanisch]

I think we may have painted ourselves into a corner here.  We agreed to some
pretty strict rules for making conventions "official", and then we want to
bend those rules when a well-established convention doesn't quite measure
up.  If the originators of the convention have no real interest in making
the documentation complete, one possible interpretation is that they also
have no interest in others adopting it.  I am not trying to be particularly
critical of those behind the FOREIGN convention, as I am sure we will
encounter this with a number of the other conventions still in the queue to
be reviewed.

I think the fundamental goal of the registry of conventions is to
communicate to others how certain data encoding challenges were solved, and
this in the hope that similar problems can be solved with similar solutions.
I'd like to see our review process be a bit lighter-weight so that it
fosters this communication.

Perhaps this is all a red herring as far as FOREIGN is concerned.  Our 2nd
requirement for official conventions says

" The convention should be in actual use in current or previously generated
publicly available FITS data files."

The FOREIGN convention has " Limited usage, mainly to encapsulate preview
PNG-format graphics files into FITS files in the NOAO High Performance
Pipeline System."  So perhaps there is nothing wrong with leaving FOREIGN as
a local convention.

Bob


On 2/16/07 7:37 PM, "Doug Tody" <dtody at nrao.edu> wrote:

> Hi Bill -
> 
> Actually, the authors are still discussing whether to make any
> further changes to the document (although I agree it is arguable
> whether this is worth it in this case).  I would wait several days
> to see the result.  In any case, I think there will still be issues
> even if further minor changes are made, and having a section with
> reviewer comments is a good idea.
> 
> I think there is still an important issue here regarding what is a
> convention and how to handle conventions within the IAU WG.  My own view
> is that conventions are not standards, and all we should do is register
> and possibly grade them.  Compliance with the real FITS standards should
> be mandatory, and minimal standards for documentation should be applied.
> But it is not our job to put conventions through the standards process
> unless the WG decides to advance a convention in this fashion.
> 
> - Doug
> 
> 
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, William Pence wrote:
> 
>> Dear IAU FWG members,
>> 
>> Since it appears that the authors of the FOREIGN convention document are
>> not planning to make any more modifications in the near future, I have
>> taken the liberty of moving the current document from the "Under Review"
>> section into the "Approved" section or the Registry (see
>> http://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/fits_registry.html).  In addition, I've added
>> a "Comments and/or critiques" link that in this case leads to a summary
>> of the issues that were raised in the recent IAU-FWG discussions.
>> Please have a look at this and let me (and the rest of the group) know
>> if you have any comments or suggestions.  (I realize that the current
>> format of this registry web page will become too unwieldy once many more
>> conventions get entered;  I plan to overhaul the layout of this page in
>> the next month or 2).
>> 
>> While it is probably fair to say that many of us are not completely
>> satisfied with the current documentation, my own opinion is that this is
>> such an infrequently used FITS convention that it is not worth our time
>> now to try to resolve every remaining issue.
>> 
>> As a reminder, any member may request a formal vote on whether any
>> convention should be included in the registry or not, in which case a
>> simple majority will decide the issue.
>> 
>> regards,
>> Bill
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> iaufwg mailing list
> iaufwg at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/iaufwg