[Edu] FW: Another point we should have talked about

[Gretchen Greene]

________________________________________
From: Gretchen Greene
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 9:32 AM
To: Markus; Massimo Ramella
Cc: Marco Molinaro; Christophe Arviset; Louys Mireille; Pierre.LeSidaner at obspm.fr; Séverin Gaudet
Subject: RE: Another point we should have talked about

Hi folks,

sorry to chime in late,  while I understand adding a new enumeration to the Registry Resource contentLevel,  i.e. "Education" is a change to the schema,  it is a very minor change and I believe we should be able to adapt to this type of feature addition.  If we want to use the registry and support any form of VO users/client tools search on educational resources,  this is the right place to do so.

-Gretchen


________________________________________
From: Markus [msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 7:12 AM
To: Massimo Ramella
Cc: Marco Molinaro; Christophe Arviset; Louys Mireille; Pierre.LeSidaner at obspm.fr; Gretchen Greene; Séverin Gaudet
Subject: Re: Another point we should have talked about

Massimo,

First, if you're ok with the draft as it is now, I believe it should
be announced on the edu-IG list, and this discussion should be taken
there; consensus on questions like these should be reached in public
(one reason being that you can then reference answers as questions
arise again, which they are wont to do).

Having said that, in brief my POVs:

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:06:08PM +0200, Massimo Ramella wrote:

> 1) ContentLevel: seems to me that the value "General" may be quite
> useless. Since ContentLevel is supposed to filter resources, a value
[...]
> somewhere else.  This was the comment :-) The question is: Would it
> be possible to have "Education" together with Research and Amateur?

I agree that "Education" would be more fitting than "General".
However, having that would require a new schema, and that is, given
the way we've built the registry schema files, a fairly disruptive
change.

Thus, it is our proposal to just *define* that "General" means
"suitable for Educational purposeses including schools and continuing
education."

This little sleight of hand should severely reduce technological
problems we might get with the adoption of our recommendations.

> 2) it seems to me that the note implies that educational resources
> other than data (i.e. docs,tutorials,videos....) should be those
> internal to VO (like the tutorials used in VO schools, for example).

What makes you think so?  I'd say text suggesting that should be
reformulated.  It is at least my intention that people can register
all kinds of document-like resources useful for VO users.

> 3) another point that is not clear to me is if we think that we
> should also preserve Edu resources by mirroring (or hosting) them on
> our VO servers. Personally, I think that we should keep these

I'n not quite sure what you mean by "our VO servers", so I cannot
really comment on this.  But talking about mirroring indeed raises a
very valid point.  It would certainly be worthwhile (of the note?) to
have some sort of "best practices" recommendation of
licensing the material in a way that invites mirroring.  On the other
hand, if we  talk about mirroring, we might need to say something
about versioning and how people can figure out whether something they
find on a mirror is up to date.

Which, come to think of it, might actually be a very valid use case.
I'm adding it just now.

[Massimo: I'm fine with including this text in an announcement mail
over the edu-IG list in something like "Discussion has started
off-list, and we want to bring it on-list now" or something like that
if you think that's appropriate.  If you don't want to do that, I'm
fine with making them again, too]

Cheers,

          Markus