Registry WG: wider discussion

[Francoise Genova]

Hi,

My input to the registry discussion: 

- I think that the RSM document is a reasonnable starting point
to use for prototyping, and that using it to describe a
relatively large number of real resources will help a lot to focus the
discussion in the future, to understand which are the real problems,
and to decide about some of the hot topics discussed during the last
weeks.
My understanding is that this does not mean that RSM is approved as a
basis for a future standard but just as a basis for prototyping,
and a tool to learn more about what we intend to do and how it can be
done.

- It seems important to keep at best compatibility with Dublin Core,
if we want to permit interdisciplinary interoperability with 
other services in the future (i.e. DC + extensions when required). 
This also works with a layer to translate
'astronomy items' into DC ones, but when we will have to discuss with
librarians, journals, or people from other disciplines it may be much
better to have a basic common vocabulary.

- Since for the moment the registry will very likely be built by hand,
this means the list has to be kept simple, clear and small enough. 
One lesson that will be learnt from usage is the relevance 
of the present relatively short list (are there many and 
consistent suggestions to add new items to it?). It will also be
possible to select exmaples for each item in the decription.
Usage will also bring more elements about the
the feasibility of developing a more automated way for
building the registry content (are service providers able to describe
their services well enough, with no need of further
checks/corrections?).

Cheers
Francoise