Registry discussion

[Tony Linde]

Hi Roy,

I thought we had something relatively simple but still extensible with RM
v0.8 and schema v0.8.1. It needs refinement to meet project needs but I
didn't think there was that much to fix. That was the basis of my response
to Ray's document.

> ** Compatibility with ADEC is the most important new thing in 
> the registry discussion. We should concentrate on that.

This has popped up in the last week and suddenly it is the most iumportant
thing in the VO world. Why?

> ** I don't like the idea of "global registries" or "full 
> registries" that are mandated to hold everything in the VO. 
> This is IMPOSSIBLE. 

Again, why? If we come up with harvesting/replicating protocols why won't it
work? I cannot believe that there'll be that many resources.

<<people can choose what their IDs look like. I think the ID should reflect
where you can go to resolve it. If the ID says roy.org, then ...>>>

That sounds more complicated to me. Instead of hitting one registry for your
metadata, you end up chasing all over the shop hoping that all the relevant
services are running.

And, to reiterate, the ResourceID is meaningless. You look at the metadata
to find anything you want to know about the resource.

Cheers,
Tony. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registry at eso.org [mailto:owner-registry at eso.org] 
> On Behalf Of Roy Williams
> Sent: 15 September 2003 15:23
> To: registry at ivoa.net
> Subject: Re: Registry discussion
> 
> 
> Ray and Tony
> 
> I think it is time to choose a scheme which is SIMPLER. 
> People who are not the inventors have to implement this stuff.
> 
> ** Compatibility with ADEC is the most important new thing in 
> the registry discussion. We should concentrate on that.
> 
> ** I don't like the idea of "global registries" or "full 
> registries" that are mandated to hold everything in the VO. 
> This is IMPOSSIBLE. I don't like the idea of global 
> registries of registries either. If we need this big new 
> layer, lets think about it next year when we have some experience.
> 
> 
> Responses to Ray:
> 
http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IdAmendPtA
This looks like reinventing the DNS system. A lot of extra work so that
people can choose what their IDs look like. I think the ID should reflect
where you can go to resolve it. If the ID says roy.org, then there should be
a resolver service at roy.org on the internet. There may also be other
places that have harvested roy.org, eg ivoa.net or us-vo.org.

http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IdAmendPtB
Whenever I see ivo:// at the start of an identifier, I will assume some part
of the ID corresponds to an item in a VO registry. If someone wants
identifiers which are not registered, please can they use a different
format.

http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IdAmendPtC
I don't see why we need to be concerned with persistence and location
independence at this time. Looks like everything in this document can be
safely left to next year once the registries are in use (once we know what
we are doing).