On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, John Taylor wrote:
>> It is not clear to me why this is so urgent, to the point where
>> getting something out quickly trumps doing a good job.
>
> Because with IVOA backing, we will be able to get more application developers
> on board, we'll get feedback and new ideas sooner, and ultimately a better
> spec then we'll get by trying to sort it all out upfront. Plus the
> astronomers get the benefits in the meantime. And I wasn't actually
> expecting us to do a bad job.
>
>> This sense of
>> urgency is being driven primarily by the current developers and users
>> of PLASTIC, which are only a subgroup of the broader community now
>> involved.
>
> Well, to be fair, there aren't many voices arguing against. Most people
> who've expressed an opinion on this list want us to move this forward
> quickly.
>
>> But these users already have PLASTIC, which can continue
>> to serve this community, possibly with some enhancements inspired
>> by our discussions here, while the broader applications messaging
>> standard is developed.
>
> In that case the only thing we might disagree on is whether PLASTIC++ should
> become an intermediate standard while a fuller one is thrashed out. I
> believe it should, to encourage developers across the IVOA to use it.
> Indeed, this is the only way we will get all the feedback we need to develop
> its successor.
On the other hand, whenever we mention astronomy messaging use-cases beyond those PLASTIC was intended for, we get complaints that the (indirect and minor) changes required to existing applications are too much to consider bothering with. I think there is a very real chance that if contrary voices are ignored, and PLASTIC++ is rushed through as an IVOA standard, there will be a divergence and we will have missed the opportunity to have a single, actual astronomical applications messaging standard which provides interoperability for a typical range of basic astronomy applications.