Bridging the VOSI-TAP gap (Pt. 1)

[Guy Rixon]

On 28 Oct 2009, at 15:59, Ray Plante wrote:

> Hey Guy,
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Guy Rixon wrote:
>>> 1) Section 2.1:  Mandate the use of the VOSI schema for delivering
>>> capability metadata.
>
>> I'm not sure that all the endpoints should be covered by the same  
>> schema. It's OK at the moment, but if we ever wanted to add another  
>> VOSI resource (and we might for UWS-PA), then we have to change the  
>> namespace for all the implementations
>> of capabilities and availability. I'd prefer to have a separate  
>> schema for capabilities, somewhat like my previous email.
>
> This seems reasonable--I'm okay with separate schemas.  If you don't  
> mind though (and this is minor), I'd like to suggest that both  
> schema namespaces include VOSI somewhere as a reference to the  
> standard that defines them...somehthing like:
>
>   http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOSIAvailability/v1.0
>   http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOSICapabilities/v1.0

This is OK by me.


>
> BTW, I like your schema for capabilities better; I would be happy  
> for us to adapt that one.
>
>>> 2) Section 2.1: Add a non-normative note explaining the use of  
>>> standard
>>> VOResource extensions.
>
>>>  Note:
>>>  In order for the service to be recognized as compliant with a
>>>  particular standard protocol (such as Simple Image Access, Simple  
>>> Cone
>>>  Search, etc.), the Capabilities metadata resource should include a
>>>  capability element with an xsi:type attribute set to the
>>>  standard Capability sub-type for that protocol.  Standard
>>>  Capability extensions, which are documented for each
>>>  protocol elsewhere, provide information that is specialized for the
>>>  protocol.
>
>> -1. It's not necessary to sub-class capability unless extra  
>> metadata are needed. The standardID attribute should be enough to  
>> associate with a standard protocol.
>
> Agreed.  Changed wording:
>
>   Note:
>   The value of the capability element's standardID attribute is used
>   to indicate the service's support for particular standard protocols
>   (such as Simple Image Access, Simple Cone Search, etc.).  In the
>   case of some protocols, the support for the standard is further
>   characterized by additional metadata provided by a standard  
> Capability
>   extension for that protocol.  The extension metadata is enabled by
>   adding a xsi:type attribute to the capability element set to the
>   Capability sub-type for that protocol (see example below).


Seems good to me.

>
>
>>> 6) Appendix 1:  Replace Availabiltiy schema listing with new VOSI  
>>> schema
>>> listing.
>>
>> -1, see argument above.
>
> Okay, as noted above.
>
> Other comments?
>
> cheers,
> Ray