Nexus Observatory Sign inCreate account
Observatory Protocol

/

Specification

/

Changes

Every change carries its reasons.

A proposal that changes a function updates the specification, the schemas and the conformance tests together, so that text, contract and test never diverge.

Read the specificationContribute
Functions
12
State machines
11
Objects
21
Standards
48

The practice this part continues.

1984 End to end, rough consensus
Saltzer, Reed and Clark argued that functions placed in the network can be completely and correctly implemented only with the knowledge of the end systems; RFC 1958 recorded the principle for the Internet’s architecture. The IETF’s working method, summarised in RFC 7282 as “rough consensus and running code”, sets the standard for how an open protocol should change. The protocol keeps authority at the site and changes only through open proposals. [1][2][3]
2013–2016 Provenance and reuse
The W3C PROV documents (2013) define an interchange model for provenance; the FAIR Guiding Principles (2016) ask that data be findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. The protocol attaches provenance, uncertainty, quality and correction state to every value, so that reuse never strips the conditions of measurement. [4][5]

What a change carries.

A proposal that changes a function moves these together, in one change.

Specification text

The normative text of the function, revised.

Function index

The machine-readable list of functions, kept in step.

Schemas

The contract schemas the change affects, each with its own schema version.

Conformance tests

The tests that show the change has been implemented as written.

How versions are numbered.

Protocol version
Written obsp/<major>.<minor>. Until 1.0 a minor version MAY break compatibility; from 1.0 only a major version does.
Schema versions
Contract schemas carry their own schema version, distinct from the protocol version.

References

Sources for the historical and standards statements on this page.

  1. Saltzer, J. H., Reed, D. P., and Clark, D. D. (1984). “End-to-End Arguments in System Design.” ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2(4). web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf
  2. Carpenter, B., ed. (1996). RFC 1958, “Architectural Principles of the Internet.” IETF. www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1958
  3. Resnick, P. (2014). RFC 7282, “On Consensus and Humming in the IETF.” IETF. www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7282
  4. W3C (2013). “PROV-Overview: An Overview of the PROV Family of Documents.” W3C Working Group Note, 30 April 2013. www.w3.org/TR/prov-overview/
  5. Wilkinson, M. D., et al. (2016). “The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship.” Scientific Data 3, 160018. doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
  6. Bradner, S. (1997). RFC 2119, “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels.” IETF. www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119
  7. Leiba, B. (2017). RFC 8174, “Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words.” IETF. www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174

Read it, test it, propose a change.

The Observatory Protocol is an open specification stewarded by the Nexus Consortium. Any party may implement it, and every change is proposed and decided in public.

Read the specificationContribute

Every version, every diff, every reason.

The change log records each version of the specification with its diff and the reason for it. No version is published yet; the working snapshot is listed below.

Read it, test it, propose a change.

The Observatory Protocol is an open specification stewarded by the Nexus Consortium. Any party may implement it, and every change is proposed and decided in public.