too much complexity?

[Tony Linde]

Hi Bob,

> throughout this project in urging folks to start simple, 
> implement, and see what we've missed or need to change rather 

Isn't that what we're doing. AstroGrid has implemented two different
versions of RM in its last two iterations and will implement 0.9 (or 0.8
plus schema 0.8.x) in the next one in time for the Jan demos.

> not understand, or not take the time to learn.  One maxim of 
> the VO is to keep the entry cost low.

This is why I keep going on about making the schema flexible enough to be
specific to certain types of resource and using astronomer-friendly entity
names. People will not use a system which seems to have masses of irrelevant
information or naming they do not understand. Let's make it easy for the
users, not the developers (within reason of course).

> Following up this point briefly... I don't think the registry 
> metadata should even attempt to track citations TO a 

Agreed.

> I think the registry should be able to handle each of the 
> catalogs.  If Resources are too coarse-grained we will have 

Agreed.

> with huge surveys.  My experience in hand-entering Vizier 
> catalogs into the NVO prototype registry suggests that the 
> whole thing could be automated, e.g., by parsing the GLU 
> dictionary and creating a mapping to the Resource

Yes, we're hoping to do this in AstroGrid iteration 04 and will be meeting
with Francoise and Francois in Strasbourg to see if this is possible.

Cheers,
Tony. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registry at eso.org [mailto:owner-registry at eso.org] 
> On Behalf Of Robert Hanisch
> Sent: 17 September 2003 03:02
> To: registry at ivoa.net
> Subject: Re: too much complexity?
> 
> 
> I share Roy's concerns, and I think I've been consistent 
> throughout this project in urging folks to start simple, 
> implement, and see what we've missed or need to change rather 
> than trying to one grand all-encompassing design from the 
> start.  By the time we get something like that right, much of 
> the supporting technology will have changed and we will be 
> obsolete before we have anything to show.  A small core done 
> well seems to me better than a complete system that many will 
> not understand, or not take the time to learn.  One maxim of 
> the VO is to keep the entry cost low.
> 
> This is not meant to undermine Ray and Tony and others who 
> are thinking hard about the registry capabilities and 
> implementation.  But Roy's cautions are important, and we 
> should seriously consider limiting scope for now.  The 
> danger, of course, is that we build and then fail to update 
> in a timely way, locking ourselves into an incomplete system. 
>  Let's recognize this risk, pledge to remain open and 
> flexible, but try to reach initial closure by the time of ADASS.
> 
> > (4) Why are there suddenly five kinds of linking relationship? If 
> > simple "citation" is good enough for the Journals, why is 
> it not good 
> > enough for VO? Half the people filling in these forms will 
> do nothing 
> > in response to
> a
> > complicated question -- and so we lose metadata -- but they will 
> > recognize and respond to the word "citations".
> 
> Following up this point briefly... I don't think the registry 
> metadata should even attempt to track citations TO a 
> Resource.  This is dynamic and open-ended, and folks like our 
> colleagues at ADS and CDS are much better equipped to take on 
> this role.  They provide Resources to find citations. The DC 
> metadata element Source is much simpler and is sufficient to 
> establish a link to the literature associated with a 
> Resource, i.e., showing parentage but not offspring.
> 
> > (6) How many registry entries will there be for Vizier? If 
> it is only 
> > one, then I suspect few people will be interested in the 
> registry. If 
> > it is one for each of the 5,000 catalogs, then how many fields in 
> > VOResource will be filled in for each?
> 
> I think the registry should be able to handle each of the 
> catalogs.  If Resources are too coarse-grained we will have 
> gained little over a search done in Google.  If they are too 
> fine-grained, e.g., to the dataset or object level, we will 
> have registries with billions of entries and they will be 
> unmanageable, or will require the kind of curation associated 
> with huge surveys.  My experience in hand-entering Vizier 
> catalogs into the NVO prototype registry suggests that the 
> whole thing could be automated, e.g., by parsing the GLU 
> dictionary and creating a mapping to the Resource
> 
> Cheers,
> Bob
>