resuming progress on TAP

[Arnold Rots]

OK, OK, I get the message. I should have kept my mouth shut.
I'll stay out of this.

  - Arnold

Doug Tody wrote:
> Hi Arnold -
> 
> Then why do you suppose none of the existing (already fully functional)
> NVO TAP prototypes which implemented PQ this past summer, did not
> follow this approach you suggest and do it on top of ADQL?  Native SQL
> and local spatial indexing mechanisms were indeed used (very easily),
> but ADQL, no.  What you describe is merely theoretically possible.
> In an actual service implementation it is much easier and more
> robust to have both at the same level and sharing the same back-end
> processing.  There are many issues, for example would you really want
> to require a full up ADQL-based table metadata query capability just
> to be able to provide the basic, much more constrained table metadata
> queries such as PQ defines?
> 
>  	- Doug
> 
> 
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Arnold Rots wrote:
> 
> >> From a relative outsider who has been watching this for a while:
> >
> > If I think about TAP from an implementation point of view and
> > consider that AQ support is mandatory, PQ support optional,
> > I would be inclined to first implement the AQ protocol and then
> > add the PQ protocol by writing a PQ->AQ converter.
> >
> >> From that perspective, it makes sense to first make sure the AQ
> > standard is well-established and then work the PQ in - which, if I
> > understand the conversation correctly, is precisely what Keith is
> > proposing. So, (I think) I agree with Ray and wonder where the current
> > debate is heading.
> >
> > But don't let this stir up another parallel discussion.
> > My 25c.
> > Cheers,
> >
> >  - Arnold
> >
> >
> > Ray Plante wrote:
> >> Hi Guys,
> >>
> >> I guess what I don't understand is what exactly the motivation is behind
> >> this suggestion to either take TAP into this two step process or to split
> >> it into separate documents, besides that you like the idea.  What problems
> >> is it meant to solve?  We have these last two integrated vesions, and as
> >> I understand it some effort to further tweak the organization back around
> >> early December.  Why, then, do we need to take a step backward?
> >>
> >> It's not that I don't think there are issues--we know there are.  But what
> >> are they?  I can't see how these new proposals will solve problems when
> >> the problems have not been spelled out.  (I made my own attept to pull
> >> some out in a previous message, but I was hoping others who have concerns
> >> would explain what they are.
> >>
> >> One concern of mine is that these proposals are effectively about *not*
> >> talking about the issues.  If we can write down what they are, we can talk
> >> about them.  If we can talk about them, we can propose solutions and
> >> discern which direction to go.
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> Ray
> >>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Arnold H. Rots                                Chandra X-ray Science Center
> > Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory                tel:  +1 617 496 7701
> > 60 Garden Street, MS 67                              fax:  +1 617 495 7356
> > Cambridge, MA 02138                             arots at head.cfa.harvard.edu
> > USA                                     http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold H. Rots                                Chandra X-ray Science Center
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory                tel:  +1 617 496 7701
60 Garden Street, MS 67                              fax:  +1 617 495 7356
Cambridge, MA 02138                             arots at head.cfa.harvard.edu
USA                                     http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------