DataLink RFC period annoucment

[Jose Enrique Ruiz]

Hi François, all
please find some comments below:



---
All along the doc: several [ref] to fix.

page 1.
http://www.ivoa.net/documents/DataLink/20140228/index.html is duplicated

page 5. 2nd p.
I would stress on the fact that the service descriptor resource describes
how to *query* a service. It does not describe in detail, for example, what
the service returns.

Page 7. 3rd p.
At the end of the paragraph: "[The s]"

Page 7. 4th p.
Is this actually the same use case of 1.2.1?

Page 8. 2nd p.
At the end of the paragraph: "Providers should be able to describe [...]"

Page 11
Remove block describing param REQUEST, since it is no longer required.

Page 15. 2nd paragraph
"This resource [is] typically describes.."

Page 15. 3.2.4 service_def
I would use the value in <PARAM name=”accessURL” to call the service
instead of the one present in field access_url provided by the DataLink
VOTable response. Why keeping two potentially different values of
accessURL? Maybe I'm missing or misunderstanding something that's not
clearly explained..

Page 16.
http://www.ivoa.net/rdf/datalink does not exist. 404

Page 16. 3.2.7 conte_type and content_length
In the case the link is a pointer to a an ad-hoc service, it may happen
that content_type and content_length cannot be defined before calling with
a specific input params chosen by the user. I'm thinking of a service that
generates images on-the-fly, and based on the input params this result
image may be very different in size, and its format may be png, jpeg or
fits. Which values for  conte_type and content_length for these cases?
blank?

Page 16. 3.2.8 content_length
I would use unit="Kbyte", much more practical and user-friendly.

Page 18. Table 2: Error Messages
I do not think a NotFoundError may be taken as an error, but as a zero
results response (as it is the case for most DAL services) Moreover, the
zero response result may allow the inspection of the number and nature of
the rows of the VOTable, in the case this response is always the same for
any ID.

Page 20. bottom of the page
<PARAM name="resourceIdentifier" datatype="char" arraysize="*"
Is resourceIdentifier really required/mandatory for a DataLink service?

Page 21. top of the page
value="ivo://ivoa.net/std/DataLink#links" />
but value provided in Page 10. is  ivo://ivoa.net/std/DataLink#links-1.0

Page 21. -24.
4.3 Example: Service Descriptor for an SIA-1.0 Service
4.4 Example: Custom Access Data Service

Should we add use="required" to PARAM tags describing mandatory input
params?
I would add one example of ref="columnID" (other than the obs_publish_id)
to one or several PARAM tags describing an input param whose value is taken
from the tabular data present in <RESOURCE type=”results”>

I would stress on the fact that the Service Descriptor syntax allows also
providing default values, which facilitates the use for a client.

Page 24. 3rd p.
9it is related to photometric or flux calibration).

Finally, a major point.
I think it would be very useful to give the possibility to add a <GROUP
name="outputParams"> describing in detail a tabular response of a Custom
Access Data Service. Self-described web services in terms of I/O params
opens the window to web services interoperability, going beyond data
interoperability.

In the same spirit, I think we should agree on a optional mechanism to
provide a detailed description of the number and nature of the links given
by the datalink service (rows of the reponse VOTable), in the case this
response is always the same for any ID.


--

Bonne fête du 14 juillet!




--
Jose Enrique Ruiz
Instituto Astrofisica Andalucía - CSIC
Glorieta de la Astronomía s/n
18009 Granada, Spain
Tel: +34 958 230 618



2014-07-11 18:58 GMT+02:00 François Bonnarel <
francois.bonnarel at astro.unistra.fr>:

> Dear IVOA members and partcipants
>     I remind you that RFC period for DataLink started a week ago.
>     No comments have been produced so far
> Cheers
> François
> Le 04/07/2014 11:34, François Bonnarel a écrit :
>
>  Dear IVOA members and participants,
>>
>>         After several months of intensive discussion within the Working
>> Group the DataLink Working draft has now reached the status of "proposed
>> recommendation".
>>
>>         Thanks to Pat Dowler's editing work (taking into account the live
>> ESAC spring interop discussions) and thanks to Sarah the new version of the
>> specification document can be found here:
>>
>>          http://www.ivoa.net/documents/DataLink/20140530/index.html
>>
>>         The "request for comments" period is starting today and will stop
>> on Monday, September the 1st at midnight, immediatly followed by the 4 week
>> TCG review period. If no serious issue is discovered during these two
>> periods of comments and review, DataLink could become a recommendation at
>> the fall interop time.
>>          You can find the RFC page there:
>>
>>          http://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/Datalink1RFC
>>
>> Good comments work and best regards to everybody
>>
>> François Bonnarel
>> Marco Molinaro
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/interop/attachments/20140714/c08d387e/attachment.html>