Dates

[Tony Linde]

Hi Ray,

Finally caught up with you :)

> yes?  Do you see 
> these dates being of primary importance to registry 
> management (e.g. for 
> managing replication) or will they have value to registry 
> clients as well?  

UpdateDate was indeed for replication use.

> I like to tuck information that is primarily for 
> administrative purposes 
> into attributes.  If these are primarily for registry 
> management, can we 
> make these attributes of Resource?  (I'm easy either way).

No problem here. We could have attributes of 'Created' and 'LastUpdated' on
each resource.

If you also want a date in the metadata which is 'associated with an event
in the life cycle of the resource', then you'll need to make it repeatable
and add a type field - no?

Again, is this likely to be used or kept up to date?

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 08:32
> To: registry at ivoa.net
> Subject: Dates
> 
> 
> Hi Tony,
> 
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Ray Plante wrote:
> > >   Date should be CreateDate and LastUpdateDate
> > To be consistant with similar cases (e.g. Contact), the RM document 
> > could
> > be updated to define two dates this way:
> > 
> >   Date.Creation
> >   Date.Update
> > 
> > This is naturally rendered in XML as 
> >   <Date>
> >     <Creation>...</Creation>
> >     <Update>...</Update>
> >   </Date>
> 
> After playing with this a bit, I think I would prefer to 
> separate these 
> two dates out as direct children of Resource.  We probably 
> would like to 
> control the occurance constraints of each type of date 
> depending on the 
> context.  With the above structure the occurances defined for 
> Creation and 
> Update would be fixed anytime one reuses Date.  
> 
> Instead I would recommend the following:
>   o  keep Date as originally defined in the RM and v0.8.2
>   o  add CreationDate and UpdateDate as separate metadata.  
> 
> One question:  I'm thinking that these new dates are meant to 
> refer to the 
> metadata description itself (as opposed to the resource), 
> yes?  Do you see 
> these dates being of primary importance to registry 
> management (e.g. for 
> managing replication) or will they have value to registry 
> clients as well?  
> 
> I like to tuck information that is primarily for 
> administrative purposes 
> into attributes.  If these are primarily for registry 
> management, can we 
> make these attributes of Resource?  (I'm easy either way).
> 
> (FYI: OAI handles update dates for replication in its XML 
> record envelope.  
> Of course, this need not have any bearing on whether we include it 
> directly in VOResource in some way.)
> 
> cheers,
> Ray
> 
>