On Apr 19, 2019, at 8:38 AM, Tim Ahern <tim<at>iris.washington.edu> wrote:
First, thanks to everyone that responded to the previously circulated FDSN Web Service Specification for the Availability Service.
We received feedback from the RESIF group as well as the University of Sao Paulo within the requested time frame. We also reviewed and included some of the recommendations that were received after the deadline from ETHZ.
Several of the team at the IRIS DMC reviewed all of the input, and we have considered all the changes although the synthesis of the suggestions required some compromises and decisions to be made. The result is in the attached document for your review.
Similar to what John Clinton recently sent, I am looking for consensus (no strong objections) with this version of the Availability Service specification. This is not the time to propose new suggestions but rather to review and hopefully agree with the current document. Additional suggestions as to how to evolve the Availability service can be made at the FDSN WG III meetings coming up in Montreal this summer. It is important to get this initial version approved in my opinion so that we have an FDSN standard with input from multiple groups.
If no significant objections are raised by May 3rd, this version will be considered accepted and posted on the FDSN web site.
Cheers
Tim Ahern
Chair
FDSN WG III
<FDSN-WS-fdsnws-availability-20190403.pdf>
On May 7, 2019, at 7:15 AM, Tim Ahern <tim<at>iris.washington.edu> wrote:
WG III members
Since no one raised an objection to this version of the availability service it is now considered adopted by the WG. Documentation will be updated in the near future,
Cheers
Tim Ahern
Chair
FDSN WG III
On Apr 19, 2019, at 8:38 AM, Tim Ahern <tim<at>iris.washington.edu <tim<at>iris.washington.edu>> wrote:----------------------
First, thanks to everyone that responded to the previously circulated FDSN Web Service Specification for the Availability Service.
We received feedback from the RESIF group as well as the University of Sao Paulo within the requested time frame. We also reviewed and included some of the recommendations that were received after the deadline from ETHZ.
Several of the team at the IRIS DMC reviewed all of the input, and we have considered all the changes although the synthesis of the suggestions required some compromises and decisions to be made. The result is in the attached document for your review.
Similar to what John Clinton recently sent, I am looking for consensus (no strong objections) with this version of the Availability Service specification. This is not the time to propose new suggestions but rather to review and hopefully agree with the current document. Additional suggestions as to how to evolve the Availability service can be made at the FDSN WG III meetings coming up in Montreal this summer. It is important to get this initial version approved in my opinion so that we have an FDSN standard with input from multiple groups.
If no significant objections are raised by May 3rd, this version will be considered accepted and posted on the FDSN web site.
Cheers
Tim Ahern
Chair
FDSN WG III
<FDSN-WS-fdsnws-availability-20190403.pdf>
FDSN Working Group III
Topic home: http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/topic/fdsn-wg3-products/ | Unsubscribe: fdsn-wg3-products-unsubscribe<at>lists.fdsn.org
Sent from the FDSN Message Center (http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/)
Update subscription preferences at http://www.fdsn.org/account/profile/