Facility and Instrument

[Tony Linde]

> I presume that the motivation for this idea comes from the 
> concern that 
> Facility and Instrument do not apply consistently to all possible 
> resources.  Is this still a concern?  If yes, what classes of 
> resources 
> would want to prevent the application of these metadata?  

This is indeed my concern - I definitely oppose having them as standard
parts of Resource. It is less of a problem is classes down the inheritance
tree include information not always used but we should avoid this at the
very top level.

> Personally, I would prefer that we go either with Tony's relationship 
> suggestion or to keep them as optional elements of the 
> generic Resource.  

I'd prefer that we either use Relationship or create a new Installation
class (or some other generic name) which can have types of Facility,
Instrument etc.

Cheers,
Tony. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registry at eso.org [mailto:owner-registry at eso.org] 
> On Behalf Of Ray Plante
> Sent: 01 October 2003 07:19
> To: registry at ivoa.net
> Subject: Facility and Instrument
> 
> 
> Tony, Bob,
> 
> Last week at our telecon, one of things I was asked to tweak 
> the metadata schema structure to separate Facility and 
> Instrument into a separate Resource subclass.  Since then, 
> Tony suggested that we might handle these as a relationship 
> type.  That latter idea is under discussion (see my last email).
> 
> Putting this latter idea aside for the moment, I want to bring up the 
> subclass idea.  I thought about this after the telecon, and I 
> found that 
> it was unclear to me which resource classes would inherit 
> from this new 
> subclass and which classes (either existing or future) would not.  I 
> concluded that it was unclear as to what this proposed subclass 
> represents.
> 
> I presume that the motivation for this idea comes from the 
> concern that 
> Facility and Instrument do not apply consistently to all possible 
> resources.  Is this still a concern?  If yes, what classes of 
> resources 
> would want to prevent the application of these metadata?  
> 
> Personally, I would prefer that we go either with Tony's relationship 
> suggestion or to keep them as optional elements of the 
> generic Resource.  
> 
> thanks,
> Ray
> 
>