StandardInterfaces V0.1

[Wil O'Mullane]

> 2.1: 
> - most s/w will view the registry as the authoritative source of metadata.
> If the service administrator has not updated the entry in the registry (or
> caused it to be harvested) then it won't be recognised by services using the
> registry.
I would like howver as a provider to tell the regitry here is my service
and have it come get my metadata rather than putting on a form or
uploading it. 

> - metadata document is the RM (Resource Metadata) : not RSM (Resource &
> Metadata)
ok
> 
> - maybe a link to the document area would be useful here
ok
> 
> SI-1:
> - chicken and egg here: does the metadata returned include the authorityId
> and resourceKey? If so, how is this got? Manually by administrator first, I
> guess.
Yes I presume so - shall clarify as such in the doc
> 
> SI-2:
> - do we really need this? Most harvesting will be done by using the Metadata
> i/f and a "since" keywoA rd, so will return changes since some date. 
Harvisting is a registry thing - this is a single record for one service.
Its not quite the same thing.
> each other. So replace SI-1 and SI-2 with...

> SI-1: All VO services will update the registry with which they are
> registered with any changes to metadata.
But why if the registry knows there is a service why not let it
check on it and get new metadata iif available.

> SI-4:
> - there may be privacy issues with returning what people are doing. This
> should be optional I think.
This is a "should" requirement - optional.

Perhaps we need more anonymous statistical operations ..
Or if we dropped the actual ip for a more anonymous grouping
?