IVOA Identifiers Working Draft

[Tony Linde]

Hi Arnold,

> I come back to the compatibility with persistent identifiers for
> literature linking and argue against making resource keys mandatory.

I don't see how the two are incompatible. It is the *combination* of
AuthorityID and ResourceKey which identifies a resource and there is
nothing to stop this being persistent.

> The registry should only have the naming authority an be able to
> translate that into a root URL, at which point any valid resource key
> can be appended. 

I certainly don't agree that a ResourceKey is constructed at the point of
a query if that is what you are saying. How can you save the structure of
a workflow if none of the resources referred to have persistent
identifiers. It also means that no-one can save the identifiers for
favourite resources in order to reuse them. Come to think of it, if you
don't store metadata for resources, how do you answer any queries on the
registry?

Maybe we just understand the term 'resource' to mean different things.
What do you mean by it? Can you give some examples?

Cheers,
Tony.


On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 15:22:24 -0400 (EDT), "Arnold Rots"
<arots at head-cfa.cfa.harvard.edu> said:
> I come back to the compatibility with persistent identifiers for
> literature linking and argue against making resource keys mandatory.
> The registry should only have the naming authority an be able to
> translate that into a root URL, at which point any valid resource key
> can be appended.  It would be foolish to insist that all resource keys
> at this level of granularity be contained in the registry.
> 
>   - Arnold
> 
> Ray Plante wrote:
> > Hi Tony,
> > 
> > On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Tony Linde wrote:
> > > A few comments on this wrt the sample registry based on the new schema
> > > (adil-v0.8.1.xml).
> > > 
> > > Neither resource in the sample (one Organisation and one DataCollection) has
> > > a ResourceKey within their identifiers. I think ResourceKey should be
> > > mandatory in all resources except one which we should create for, say,
> > > Authority: this could hold any info about the authority including a pointer
> > > to an organisation.
> > 
> > I went back and forth on this one.  (What I really needed was a second 
> > opinion.)  I'll change this.
> > 
> > > The document also suggests that only people from a 'naming authority' can
> > > add resources to a registry. In my mind, a registry should have a default
> > > AuthorityID so that anyone could add a resource to it whether they are from
> > > a recognised naming authority or not.
> > > 
> > > A registry could be set up to refuse registrations from non-authority
> > > personnel but this should not be the default, I think.
> > 
> > Agreed.  I'll put a clarify remark in the WD.  
> > 
> > cheers,
> > Ray
> > 
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Arnold H. Rots                                Chandra X-ray Science
> Center
> Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory                tel:  +1 617 496
> 7701
> 60 Garden Street, MS 67                              fax:  +1 617 495
> 7356
> Cambridge, MA 02138                            
> arots at head-cfa.harvard.edu
> USA                                    
> http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
__
Tony Linde                       Phone:  +44 (0)116 223 1292
AstroGrid Project Manager        Fax:    +44 (0)116 252 3311
Dept of Physics & Astronomy      Mobile: +44 (0)7753 603356
University of Leicester          Email:  ael at star.le.ac.uk
Leicester, UK   LE1 7RH          Web:    http://www.astrogrid.org