Registry WG: Attention/Action

[Tony Linde]

Okay, this is going to be fairly obvious.

> 1. Should the RSM document be a Working Draft (WD), ie a 
> document approved by this group as the basis for a future standard?

Yes but with some structure added.

> 2. Should RSM (Resource and Service Metadata) be renamed to 
> RM (Resource Metadata)?

Yes. We have defined everything within the Registry to be a Resource so
calling it Resource and Service Metadata is redundant.

> 3. What structure should the next WD take: a flat one based 
> on Ray's VOResource.xsd or a hierarchical one similar to the 
> one's I've posted recently?

Hierarchical, eg:

Resource
|-Service
| |-SkyService
| |-OtherService
|-Community
| |-Person
| |-Group
| |-Organisation

> 4. Should the metadata for a resource be unambiguous and each 
> item named for its purpose or should we have a basic set of 
> metadata which is used to fit requirements of different types 
> of resource?

Unambiguous and named for reasons I've set out previously. Basically, as Bob
pointed out, we get loads of errors from misinterpretation otherwise.

> 4a. Should the basic resource metadata be based on Dublin 
> Core or should metadata items be named for their astro 
> meanings (and transformed to DC form if needed for DC-tools 
> harvesting)?

Use valid names and then transform for DC harvesting; best of both worlds.

> 5. Should the group discuss the structure of resource 
> metadata now and only issue a new WD when that discussion is 
> more stable or should we issue a new version of RSM/RM and 
> get people to build software based on that proposal and then 
> discuss the structure?

Get the structure and basic metadata defined now.

Cheers,
Tony.