<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>data models don't necessarily fit 1-1 into a project which can be generated and shared by data providers in a 'service'.<br></div>We are in a mode where we are generating component models which are used like legos to build a product which satisfies IVOA requirements.<br></div><br> For example, we are now working the Cube model.. to satisfy requirements of describing/sharing NDCube data (Images, event lists, etc) and will provide the 'source' of information which will populate SIAV2 query responses (regarding image size/shape and transforms).<br></div><br> To do this, we are working several component models (Dataset, STC ) and (Char is also pulled in).<br></div><br> None of these individually satisfy the use case, but the combination.. headed by NDCube, will. I think we need a means that we can show that STC, Dataset, Char and other component models are built properly, and satisfy <b>their</b> requirements which does not require sending data from Archive A to Tool B.<br><br></div>Mark<br><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Tom McGlynn (NASA/GSFC Code 660.1) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tom.mcglynn@nasa.gov" target="_blank">tom.mcglynn@nasa.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">If you feel that data models are not subject to the requirement of two reference implementations, that's fine but then this discussion is moot regardless. If you think they are then you are quibbling about my choice of words. Feel free to substitute whichever you like for 'protocol'.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Tom<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Matthew Graham wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
But a data model is not a protocol.<br>
<br>
-- Matthew<br>
<br>
On May 10, 2016, at 4:37 PM, Tom McGlynn (NASA/GSFC Code 660.1) wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This kind of using the fact that you have written a definition of the model counting as an implementation of the model sounds awfully incestuous. I have always read the requirement as having two different groups using the protocol in some service, ideally one that supports doing astronomy.<br>
<br>
Tom McGlynn<br>
<br>
Matthew Graham wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
So once we have a mapping standard with reference implementations any DM model specified in VO-DML could automatically have a reference implementation (according to these criteria) which would make life easier. Time to get that mapping spec out :)<br>
<br>
-- Matthew<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On May 10, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Laurino, Omar wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi,<br>
<br>
I agree with Gerard that items 1) and 2) look like the same, unless one brings in a standard for instance serializations. Since we can have standardized mapping strategies (as different recommendations) that map instances of valid VODML/XML models and their standard serializations, I don't think a valid serialization of an instance should be required for data models: this should be guaranteed by the mapping standard(s) and their reference implementations.<br>
<br>
As for the ModelImport requirement, it makes sense for "low level" models but not for "high level" ones, plus there is no way to guarantee that all types defined by a model are extendable/usable by other models. It gets too complicated.<br>
<br>
I would suggest we include the "model import" evidence as a "soft requirement", to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on the use cases of the model. For STC, it makes a lot of sense to require this additional proof of interoperability, because the model is intended to be a building block for other models.<br>
<br>
Or, we might be to *require* that at least one reference implementation is a mission/archive/service-specific model that extends the standard one. So, if we had a model for Sources/Catalogs, at least one reference implementation should be a mission/archive/system-specific model that proofs the model can be meaningfully extended by actual specializations. Other than properly validating as VODML/XML, this model should be evaluated for its domain-specific content, and that's probably not something you can automate. This should also be a good way to involve implementors from the community, so it's probably my preferred one.<br>
<br>
Omar.<br>
<br>
<br>
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Gerard Lemson <<a href="mailto:gerard.lemson@gmail.com" target="_blank">gerard.lemson@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gerard.lemson@gmail.com" target="_blank">gerard.lemson@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi<br>
What is meant by item 2, "An XML serialization of the DM".<br>
The standard representation (serialization?) of a VO-DML data<br>
model is VO-DML/XML, i.e. XML. And that is the representation<br>
that can be validated (step 1?) using automated means, for<br>
example using XSLT scripts in the vo-dml/xslt folder on volute@gavo.<br>
If 2) is meant to imply an XML serialization of an *instance* of<br>
the model, that we can only do once we have a standard XML<br>
representation of instances of models. That does not yet exist.<br>
The original VO-URP framework does contain an automated XML<br>
Schema generator for its version of VO-DML, that has not yet been<br>
ported to VO-DML.<br>
And of course the mapping document describes how one can describe<br>
instances serialized in VOTable, but that is a different standard.<br>
<br>
For what it's worthy, I think that an "implementation of VO-DML"<br>
is a data model expressed using that language (in VO-DML/XML to<br>
be precise) and validated using software. The latter enforces<br>
that the language should allow automated validtion.<br>
I think interoperable implementations of VO-DML are two or more<br>
valid models that are linked by "modelimport" relationships.<br>
I.e.one model "imports" the other(s) and uses types from the<br>
other as roles or super types in the definition of its own types.<br>
This is supported by the VODMLID/VODMLREF meachanism of the language.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Gerard<br>
<br>
<br>
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Matthew Graham<br>
<<a href="mailto:mjg@cd3.caltech.edu" target="_blank">mjg@cd3.caltech.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mjg@cd3.caltech.edu" target="_blank">mjg@cd3.caltech.edu</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
We're trying to define specifically what would satisfy the<br>
reference implementation requirement for an IVOA Spec in the<br>
context of a data model. The proposal is that:<br>
<br>
(1) If the DM has been described using VO-DML it can be<br>
validated as valid VO-DML<br>
<br>
(2) An XML serialization of the DM can be validated<br>
<br>
so therefore is the combination of the two sufficient to<br>
demonstrate the validity and potential interoperability of<br>
the data model (which is the purpose of the reference<br>
implementations).<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Matthew<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Omar Laurino<br>
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory<br>
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics<br>
100 Acorn Park Dr. R-377 MS-81<br>
02140 Cambridge, MA<br>
<a href="tel:%28617%29%20495-7227" value="+16174957227" target="_blank">(617) 495-7227</a><br>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>