amendments to Identifier framework

[Tony Linde]

Hi Ray,

> Yes, if we assume that a registry can only publish (i.e. 
> originate) IDs 
> with authorityIDs it manages.  I'm okay with this; however, some have 
> suggested this is an unnecessary restriction.  It certainly 
> makes things 
> easier.  

Easier and more secure I think. I'm sure that those who register an
AuthorityID with a very strict registry will not want others from a less
strict one adding resources under their authority.

Cheers,
Tony. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Plante [mailto:rplante at poplar.ncsa.uiuc.edu] 
> Sent: 15 September 2003 23:17
> To: Tony Linde
> Cc: registry at ivoa.net
> Subject: RE: amendments to Identifier framework
> 
> 
> Hi Tony,
> 
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Tony Linde wrote:
> > > If not, can you suggest
> > > an alternate statement regarding who/what controls the use of 
> > > authority IDs?
> > 
> > I personally don't think we need one, nor do I think it 
> necessary to 
> > trace names, but if people want to link an authority to an 
> > organisation, I can live with it. But if I want to register an 
> > authority of tonylinde.com, I don't see that it should be traceable 
> > back to anyone but me, and if I'm the named curator of that 
> authority, 
> > why do we need more? But it doesn't overly bother me as 
> long as it is 
> > all optional so people can ignore it if they want.
> 
> Okay, your Authority resource class captures this (w/ the 
> ManagingOrg).  
> 
> > > The main requirement proposed here is having the global
> > > registry associate AuthorityIDs with the registry that 
> > > originates them.
> > 
> > We'll get that by replicating the Registry resource which 
> includes a 
> > list of ManagedAuthority pointers. Yes?
> 
> Yes, if we assume that a registry can only publish (i.e. 
> originate) IDs 
> with authorityIDs it manages.  I'm okay with this; however, some have 
> suggested this is an unnecessary restriction.  It certainly 
> makes things 
> easier.  
> 
> > > this interoperation, I'm suggesting one minor change to the
> > > Identifier WD specification of the URI form: the use of # to 
> > > set off a component that is to be ignored by registries.  
> > 
> > Hmm. Sounds okay though, again, I don't think it belongs as part of 
> > the identifier WD. Let'd keep it simple. Any extension of 
> the use of 
> > the identifier *outside* of resource identity should be 
> handled by a 
> > Note, I think.
> 
> Agreed.  
> 
> cheers,
> Ray
>