registry-updatable data

[Ray Plante]

Hi Aurelien,

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Aurelien Stebe wrote:
> I have a few comments on this :
> - I think the "status" attribute should stay with the resource record, 
> and a "liveliness", as was suggested at first, would be put in the 
> recordCuration

what would be the difference between status and liveliness?  

> - two verification levels : one for the metadata and one for the actual 
> service

Would the verification of the service rate the compliance of the service 
behavior and the output format?  True, we had be thinking of putting these 
two together under one value.  It's likely that we may have a service that 
operates well but is poorly described by its metadata.  In the interest 
in adding metadata that does not get used, one question we should consider 
is, do you think applications that use this information will care to 
distinguish between quality of the service interface and the quality
of the metadata?  Is a single value for both good enough (for now)? 

Note that we specifically trying to steer clear from rating the quality of 
the resource content itself (e.g. is this a good dataset or not).  

> The problem I see with all this is that it would change the level of the 
> resource metadata.
> It was : VOResources/Resource .... it would become : 
> VOResources/resourceRecord/profile
> It might be a problem during the transition.

Yes, this definitely has transition pains associated with it.  In general, 
any change to the core VOResource schema will have pain in the transition 
(which is why I'm keen on getting VOResource & RI out of working draft 
status).  

cheers,
Ray