extending the registry

[Ray Plante]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Tony Linde wrote:
> I've been thinking that Resource element should be implemented in the schema
> as *abstract* so that you never actually have a resource element (it'd not
> be much use since it would not be possible to tell what it is).

A user can tell what it is via its Summary/Description and 
Summary/ReferenceURL.  

I would like to keep Resource concrete as it allows the registration of 
things that do not fall into any of the defined resource classes (e.g. see 
Type values; assuming the particular registry chooses to allow this).  

Roy's example is interesting because it shows how the generic Resource 
element might have to be employed to carry an EduAstro record to someone 
who doesn't understand EduAstro.  (Perhaps this is what you, Tony, were 
getting at.)

> > Thus we have a flexible and extensible registry system 
> > through the magic of OAI.
> 
> I'm not sure OAI *gives* us anything. If most of our registries are
> implemented as web services, OAI harvesting method (I believe it is cgi
> based, no?) is more of a burden. I would have thought that for the Jan demo
> it might be easier to mandate a simple web service method along the lines I
> suggested in http://ivoa.net/forum/registry/0600.htm . Those who can also
> implement an OAI interface can do so and report back on its efficacy.

I have discussed the issue of web-service-izing an OAI implementation in 
http://www.ivoa.net/forum/registry/0435.htm.  If we base our web service 
interface on the OAI design, we would retain the benefits.  It would be 
trivial for *one of us* to create an HTTP Get wrapper around a web service 
implementation and share it; every one else would get traditional OAI 
support for free.  I think we would come out ahead on the balance.  

cheers,
Ray