StandardInterfaces V0.1

[Tony Linde]

> 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. 

That makes sense, but what about services which already exist and which
no-one wants to modify: presumably their owner can add the registry entry
manually and set a flag saying that the service does not support the
Metadata method.

> Harvisting is a registry thing - this is a single record for 
> one service. Its not quite the same thing.

Ok. If everyone else wants to keep the MetaDataChangedOn method then that's
fine.

> But why if the registry knows there is a service why not let 
> it check on it and get new metadata iif available.

Just seemed more efficient for the resource to push its changes to the
registry than have the registry keep checking it for changes. I don't mind
but I do think, as has been said elsewhere, that we need a range of options:
push, pull, poll, notify etc.

> > SI-4:

This will always be problematic. Maybe we should go for a simpler interface
to start with and leave this out. If everyone else wants to keep it then it
must be optional.

Cheers,
Tony. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-grid at eso.org [mailto:owner-grid at eso.org] On 
> Behalf Of Wil O'Mullane
> Sent: 23 January 2004 16:20
> Cc: 'Grid_Ivoa_List'
> Subject: Re: StandardInterfaces V0.1
> 
> 
> > 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
> ?
>