> > * re 2: Data Model
> > this section should begin with a note that the VOTable representation
> > of a Data Model will be superseded by the work of the IVOA Data Model
> > group.
>
> I basically disagree -- I do not see VOTable as a temporary patch
> until the (necessarily complex) final data model comes up.
I too think that VOTable is here to stay for a decade or so. The use of VOTable for metadata is being designed-in to major new instruments e.g. ALMA, and for the rest of us more modest data providers, not to mention tool-designers, it has been a major step forwards to get a large proportion of the community to go over to something as standard and useful as VOTable. It may not be perfect but sometimes you ahve to work with what you ahve got. The community is no better resourced than we are on average, probably worse; we should minmise the transoformations we require. It is vital that our prototypes can be turned into real global tools now and incrementally or we will not serve real needs.
I realise that there are things which can only be done using VOTable alongside clunky fixes, and Tony's viewpoint is that using VOTable cuts us off from efficient applications of other functionality. However I think this is an 80:20 situation and VOTable solves the important 80%...
Maybe this question should be posted to the dm mailing list? As an apprentice dm person, I think that we very much need unifying standards based on real models and I don't see anything which is better than VOTable, and real data providers certainly can't wait (or be given excuses to delay). Using the FITS analogy, for a long time FITS was nearly standard but people used the lack of formal agreement (now reached) to produce all kinds of abominations which ignorred the keywords which already did have general consensus. If we start dissing VOTable the practical consequence will be more sloppy metadata, not better, in the life-times of most of our projects. But am I just a paranoid conservative?
cheers
a