Subject: Re: SPREADSHEET Object Vote
To: SHOWALTER@ringside.arc.nasa.gov, Tyler.L.Brown@jpl.nasa.gov,
 arvidson@wundow.wustl.edu, charles.h.acton@jpl.nasa.gov, eeliason@usgs.gov,
 John.S.Hughes@jpl.nasa.gov, ma@astro.umd.edu, rbeebe@nmsu.edu,
 rsimpson@magellan.stanford.edu, rwalker@igpp.ucla.edu,
Cc: Boris.V.Semenov@jpl.nasa.gov, cisbell@usgs.gov,
 Elizabeth.D.Rye@jpl.nasa.gov, grayzeck@astro.umd.edu,
 guinness@wundow.wustl.edu, joel.m.wilf@jpl.nasa.gov, lhuber@nmsu.edu,
 mgordon@mail.arc.nasa.gov, pgarcia@usgs.gov, raugh@astro.umd.edu,

>I realize that we will almost certainly be in the minority and 
>possibly a minority of one, but I think it is important to address a 
>significant philosophical issue.  This is an issue on which PPI and 
>SBN long ago agreed to disagree while still working happily together, 
>but it is an issue which much of the MC would prefer to ignore.  The 
>basic point in my mind is that we should absolutely minimize the 
>number of different formats that end-users of the archive are facing. 
>New formats should be introduced not because data providers want them 
>and not because we as archivists want them, but only because we think 
>the end users will need or really want this new format twenty years 
>from now.
>
>Let me say at the outset that I have no particular problem with any 
>of the details of the object ...

  In the interests of promoting discussion on this philosophical point,
  I am going to withhold a 'YES' vote for the time being.  If the only
  way to ensure discussion is with a 'NO', then the vote counters should
  record it so.

  I'm not so worried about end users.  Philosophically, I believe
  the archive itself should be kept as stupidly simple as possible.
  Translators, if PDS chooses to implement them, can convert the
  simple formats to user-friendlier ones as the climate changes.

  Like SBN, I have no particular problem with this object; in fact, I
  have invested a fair amount of time in refining the proposal currently
  on the table.  But I'm not convinced that defining new objects is
  good practice when existing objects will do the job.  So a 
  broader discussion would be helpful.

  Also, since I'm not convinced the 'standards process' is bug-free,
  this provides an opportunity to review its theoretical function
  and its operation under modest stress.  For example, we were told
  last week 'If there are several "no" votes, and/or questions, the 
  SCR will return to the working group for rework.'  What is 
  'several', and is referral to the working group appropriate when
  there appear to be no TECHNICAL issues?  But SPREADSHEET isn't
  even on the telecon agenda for tomorrow; so perhaps technical
  issues have been raised(?).

Regards,
Dick