Resources = services!

[Tony Linde]

Hi Ray,

> them.  However, the framework should be more general and allow for 
> experimentation and variation that leads to evolution.  
> Disallowing it at 
> the framework level seems an unnecessary restriction. 

I can agree with that.

> The Service metadata in VOResource attempts to leverage off existing 
> interfaces instead of duplicating them...

I think I see what you're getting at: the WSDL definition somehow
encapsulates the resource definition.

> The alternative is essentially reinventing the wheel in some 
> way...  

Given that some services won't be WS-based we'll have to create all the
schemas plus registry methods for getting them into the registry etc. 

I think I'd rather leave the mechanisms for getting the metadata into the
registry to one side for now and concentrate just on the structure of that
metadata.

(But I could still be missing the whole point ...)

Cheers,
Tony. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registry at eso.org [mailto:owner-registry at eso.org] 
> On Behalf Of Ray Plante
> Sent: 10 June 2003 16:38
> To: registry at ivoa.net
> Subject: RE: Resources = services!
> 
> 
> Hi Tony,
> 
> I've reviewed your document and am working up some feedback.  
> For now, 
> here's some quick follow-on to our discussion.
> 
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Tony Linde wrote:
> > > > - I think 'Resource' is redundant - everything is a resource.
> > > 
> > > This is allowed for describing resources that (in the eyes of the
> > > registrant/curator) do not fall into one of the specific
> > > classes. 
> > 
> > I'm still not sure I like the idea of 'anything' being dropped into 
> > the registry with no idea of what it is (ie, no way of 
> automatically 
> > identifying its class and type).
> 
> I don't think this is an issue for the general framework.  If 
> you as a 
> registry builder are uncomfortable, then you can choose not 
> to support it.  
> If you as a user don't want to see these records, you can 
> choose not to 
> return these types.  Even VO-wide registries can choose not 
> to support 
> them.  However, the framework should be more general and allow for 
> experimentation and variation that leads to evolution.  
> Disallowing it at 
> the framework level seems an unnecessary restriction. 
> 
> > You've lost me - probably because I don't know much about web 
> > services. Resources should be fully described in the registry - 
> > whether or not some of this description is duplicated in the WSDL - 
> > maybe we can ultimately create a tool that generates the 
> WSDL from a 
> > registry entry. But many resources won't be services and 
> many services 
> > won't be web service delivered. So the WSDL must be 
> subordinate to the 
> > registry metadata.
> 
> The Service metadata in VOResource attempts to leverage off existing 
> interfaces instead of duplicating them.  The two examples are 
> Web Services 
> and GLU services.  Where such descriptions do not exist, the 
> necessary 
> description of the interface is defined; the examples of these are 
> browser-based services (using the WebBrowser interface 
> element) and HTTP 
> Get-based services (using ParamHTTPGet, defined at the moment in 
> VOStdService.xsd).  
> 
> The alternative is essentially reinventing the wheel in some 
> way.  For Web 
> Services, either you reinvent a schema for transmitting the same 
> information that WSDL was designed to capture, or you reinvent the 
> mechanism for accessing it.  Despite the fact that the WSDL file is 
> referenced via a URL, a registry is free to pre-cache that 
> file and index 
> its contents, incorporating it into its searchable data.  
> 
> cheers,
> Ray
> 
>