Adjustments to section Role in the VO Architecture #57
Conversation
Paragraph about STC and Utypes is no longer applicable. Just delete it. I also removed STC from the role diagram.
Update the role_diagram accordingly.
mbtaylor
changed the title
| <rec name="SSAP" x="682" y="180" w="36"/> | ||
| <rec name="SIAP" x="683.5" y="230" w="33"/> | ||
| <rec name="TAP" x="686" y="255" w="28"/> | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we could nominally add DAP (prerec) since I think the WG has agreed to pursue this in favour of more SIA, SSA, etc. And there is an ivoa-std repo where the work is happening.
I also just transferred a SLAP2 repo to ivoa-std, so that's nominally another... maybe too far in future?
|
On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 11:17:47AM -0700, Patrick Dowler wrote:
I think we could nominally add DAP (prerec) since I think the WG
has agreed to pursue this in favour of more SIA, SSA, etc. And
there is an ivoa-std repo where the work is happening.
I also just transferred a SLAP2 repo to ivoa-std, so that's
nominally another... maybe too far in future?
Well, I think SLAP2 is what'll happen in the end; my main concern --
that we won't build an SSLDM2 against VAMDC -- is addressed, and I
admit it's more realistic that the VAMDC people. But: after looking
at things, I don't think we should have SLAP2 in the architecture
diagram. So far, we don't talk about major versions in the
architecture diagram, and SLAP is already in there.
However, I have reshuffled the S-Protocols in
<ivoa-std/ivoatex#158>, partly because I'd
like to have DAP near the top (btw, wat about renaming ConeSearch to
SCS? DAP could move to the top then), partly because we then *could*
have SLAP and SLAP2 next to each other.
|
|
My idea was to show a representative list not a comprehensive one, but maybe showing all DALI-using standards would be an informative thing to do. If so there are more required: alongside DAP and SLAP (I agree with Markus let's not put major version numbers into this diagram): SODA, SLAP, ObsObjSAP, have I missed any? |
|
DataLink? I didn't catch the "representative list" at first, but I see what you are thinking there. It's probably hard/misleading to do the equivalent of in a diagram. I actually like the idea if it could be done |
|
I also agree: let's not have major version in the role diagram. DALI won't apply to SLAP1 anyway thanks to the sentence you've just added:
Anyway, SLAP(2) will be a thing. So it can be included. DAP, on the other hand, is not even a draft, so I have mix feelings here. Maybe, it is too soon. DAP should be standard at some point, but maybe we will have DALI-1.3 at the time DAP becomes a REC. As one of the main editor of DAP, what do you think, @pdowler ? |
|
DAP hasn't been the highest priority for anyone to really push it, but I could see some activity coming this summer/fall. Mainly I think people from Rubin were interested, but they just starting getting really data from the telescope so I suspect have been too busy to think about it. As I said, I think we decided that DAP would come instead of SIA-2.1+ and it would provide functionality for other data types (thinking mainly spectra, so SSA replacement). We'd also have to figure out how DAP interacts with ObsCore extensions... |
|
If you think you can have at least a WD by the end of the year, fine with me. You can include it in the role diagram along with SLAP, DataLink and others. |
|
On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 08:49:46AM -0700, Grégory Mantelet wrote:
If you think you can have at least a WD by the end of the year,
fine with me. You can include it in the role diagram along with
SLAP, DataLink and others.
In that case, would one of you comment/approve
ivoa-std/ivoatex#158
Thanks!
|
See issue #56.