registry-updatable data

[Ray Plante]

Hi Gang,

The purpose of the Resource type attributes was to separate what
information came from the resource provider (which should only be
altered by the resource provider) and what came from a registry
holding the record (which may be different registry-to-registry).
Breaking this information out entirely from the Resource element as
Kevin suggests would make this separation even more clear.  In
particular, we can break it out of the VOResource schema definition
and make it specifically part of the Registry Interface schema
(RegistryInterface-v0.1.xsd).

Note that one important point of standardizing this information is to
allow it to be exposed to applications.  Thus, this information needs
to appear via both OAI and the search interface.  It also needs to be
packaged naturally with the resource metadata.  So here's how we might
do it; I've put the namespace prefix to clarify where .  (Feel free to
suggest different names.)

  <ri:resourceRecord 
        xmlns:ri="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/RegistryInterface/v0.2"
        xmlns:vr="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/VOResource/v1.0">

     <ri:profile xsi:type="vr:Organisation" created="..." updated="..." >

        <!-- 
          -  This element contains the resource description (formally
          -  the Resource element).  The attributes created and updated 
          -  are only changed by originating registry.  The contents are 
          -  only changed by the resource provider.
          -->

        <vr:title>...</vr:title>
        <vr:shortName>...</vr:shortName>
        ...

     </ri:profile>

     <ri:recordCuration>

        <!--
          -  This element contains information that can be updated by any 
	  -  registry.  For simplicity, I just show the bits that were 
          -  formerly discussed as Resource attribute's; see below for 
          -  alternative layout.
	  -->

        <ri:status>active</ri:status> 
	<ri:harvestedFrom>...</ri:harvestedFrom>
        <ri:verificationLevel>2</ri:verificationLevel>

     </ri:recordCuration>
  </ri:resourceRecord>

Do we prefer pulling the record curation information out in this way?  If 
so, then we can talk the details of the format of this record.  

Kevin's suggestion adds some useful information:
   o  the entity that set the "stamping" information.  This would tell us 
      whether the information that came from the harvestee was preserved 
      or was overridden by the harvester.  

      The value should really be the IVOA identifier of the registry that 
      set the information.  

   o  when the record was harvested.  This would allow us to more easily 
      track records that are out of date and not being reharvested (a 
      problem we've encountered in the NVO).

I don't know what the "stampedidentifier" refers to; however, if it is an 
identifier, it really should be an IVOA identifier.  I'll note that I 
think that the word "stamp" could have some negative connotations 
associated with it.  I might suggest the following modification to Kevin's 
strawman:

     <recordCuration xmlns="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/RegistryInterface/v0.2">

        <verification>
           <setBy>ivo://nvo.ncsa/registry</setBy>
           <status>active</status>
           <verificationLevel>2</verificationLevel>
        </verification>
	<harvestedFrom>...</harvestedFrom>
        <lastHarvestDate>...</lastHarvestDate>

     </recordCuration>
   
cheers,
Ray