updated SSA schema for the registry

[Ray Plante]

Hey Markus,

Thanks for responding!

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Markus Dolensky wrote:
> Although it should be clear from the text let me emphasize that the order of 
> compliance levels is
>
>   { query << minimal << full }
>
> and not {minimal,query,full} which is the order of their declaration. As a 
> reminder, 'query' was invented to support existing services and to lower the 
> hurdle for archives who cannot afford to implement data model mediation.

Thanks for this clarification.  I updated the documentation accordingly:
I changed the order of the definition of these values and added an 
indication of their order.  See SsaResourceSchema for details.

Does it make sense to drop "complianceLevel" from the 
"ProtoSpectralAccess", given that we cannot imply/guarantee compliance 
with any particular version of any IVOA standard?

cheers,
Ray





>
> Hence, my plea to registry interface designers is to make service providers 
> understand that 'minimal' is actually 'medium' compliant or data model 
> compliant. (And since the respective standard document already uses the given 
> terms the Schema has to stick to them consistently, sorry).
>
> Many thanks,
> Markus as SSA co-editor
>