ownedAuthority element

[Matthew J. Graham]

Hi Kevin,

The idea here then is to actually change the meaning of 
<managedAuthority>?
Currently we have (if you're lucky since not all registries use the 
managedAuthority tag - it's only optional at the moment):

<Registry>
   <identifier>a small publish registry</identifier>	
   <managedAuthority>ivo://nvo.apple</managedAuthority>
   <managedAuthority>ivo://nvo.pear</managedAuthority>
</Registry>

which means that the Authority records ivo://nvo.apple and 
ivo://nvo.pear reside in this registry and that resources identified 
with these authorities can only be published in this registry. I would 
say that this really means that this registry *owns* these authorities.

What you are suggesting is that this would become:

<Registry>
   <identifier>a small publishing registry</identifier>
   <ownedAuthority>ivo://nvo.apple</ownedAuthority>
   <ownedAuthority>ivo://nvo.pear</ownedAuthority>
</Registry>

and that there would also be:

<Registry>
   <identifier>the local full registry</identifier>
   <managedAuthority>ivo://nvo.apple</managedAuthority>
   <managedAuthority>ivo://nvo.pear</managedAuthority>
</Registry>

When people wanted to harvest records from the small publishing 
registry they would instead harvest them via the local full registry 
and it would only ever be the local full registry which harvested from 
the small publishing registry?

Would the small publishing registry be free to choose which full 
registry managed it? Would it be free to change its managing full 
registry if it wanted to, e.g. because it was not being harvested 
frequently enough or the verificationLevels that the full registry was 
assiging its records were not what it felt it deserved?

I tend to think that the hierarchical model is really only justified if 
we had 10000+ registries instead of maybe 10+.

	Cheers,

	Matthew

On Apr 5, 2005, at 2:14 AM, KevinBenson wrote:

> There was something agreed to and thought to be good idea back in 
> Boston
> IVOA meeting.  But unfortunately did not make it into the 0.10 schema. 
>  The
> idea was to have a <ownedAuthority> element at the same level as
> <managedAuthority> in the Registry type.  Where by <ownedAuthority> 
> will be
> the original publishing Registry where the Resource records are 
> changed, and
> <managedAuthority> could be at a separate Registry (normally a Full
> Registry).
>
> The reason for this is because numbers of publishing registries are 
> starting
> to grow and the current mechanism we have in place a Full Registry 
> must go
> around to every Registry (Full or Publish) doing harvests, when in 
> general
> it is more practical and beneficial if you could just go to maybe 1 or 
> 2
> Full Registries (most likely in a particular 
> region/area/country/continent -
> what ever makes the best sense) and pick up all the information.
>
> Now how does the Full(managed Registry) go to a publishing Registry to 
> pick
> up there data.  Well I would assume it is also by the harvesting 
> interface
> and I would also assume it would be good if the Full Registry (that 
> manages
> a Publishing Registry) is down for the moment then another particular 
> Full
> Registry may have some logic to go to the Publishing registry to do a
> harvest, but I don't think we should dictate that.  I would rather 
> just do
> mostly Full Registry to Full Registry harvests.
>
> For an example (these are just examples):
> HEASARC - may be managed by STSCI Full Registry - NVO
> NCSA - may be managed by Carnivore Full Registry - NVO
> Portsmouth, MSSL, RAL - may be managed by Galahad Leicester Full 
> Registry -
> Astrogrid
> Edinburgh(roe) - may be managed by Cambridge Full Registry - Astrogrid
> Tokyo, Kyoto - may be managed by Nagasaki Full Registry in - JVO
> CDS - CDS Publishing Registry
>
> Now instead of Full Registries doing up to 14 different harvests of a
> registry there is just 6.
>
> So is there anything that needs to be better explained?  Does everybody
> still see this as a good idea to implement.  I would think it is still 
> a
> good idea and something we should implement when ever we do the next 
> release
> of the Registry Type schema.
>
> Cheers,
> Kevin
>