IVO ids and Data Sets Identifiers

[Robert Hanisch]

I think the main point, Francois, is that the identifier is simply not
supposed to be a URL, anymore than bibcodes are.  Bibcodes are resolved into
URLs via services.  Dataset identifiers will be resolved into URLs via
services.  Same thing, no?  So having the proposed structure to VO
identifiers seems an easy way to have compability between registries and
dataset IDs.

Bob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Francois Ochsenbein" <francois at vizir.u-strasbg.fr>
To: <registry at ivoa.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: IVO ids and Data Sets Identifiers


>
> Tony,
>
> My only problem is that the usage of the # will forbid the usage
> of the same identifier as an IVO identifier AND as an UR[IL] directly
> usable to point to a dataset from an electronic article. It therefore
> means that the 2 things have to be disjoined because it is not possible
> (in the HTTP sense) to make a distinction between
>    //Authority.ID/(resource_key)#(dataset_1) and
>    //Authority.ID/(resource_key)#(dataset_2)
>
> I feel it's a pity to introduce this incompatiblity -- and moreover
> I agree fully with Arnold, I cannot understand the necessity of a
> resource_key. What you need is just a unique identifier, which will
> be supplied by the Authority.ID . It's not the role of the registry
> to define this, IMHO.
>
> Cheers, francois