registry-updatable data

[KevinBenson]

Okay I don't have any real objection to this.
If IVOA curators (or group of people from projects) are willing to sit down
and all agree on this verificationLevel and the original registry sets this
attribute up with that value.  But earlier e-mails were applying that any
registry can have there own verification level for the same record.  Hence
our search interface will not work because it will bring back records
inconsistently.  This only would work if Datascope is ever tied to lets say
a Carnivore registry, if you change it to stsci or Astrogrid which might
have put it at "0" because they have not got around to setting
verificationLevels.  Then Datascope is broken and inconsistent between our
registries.

But if people want to get together on e-mails and all decide unanimously to
set the verificationLevel then I don't see much of a problem.  As long as it
keeps our registries consistent.

cheers,
Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Plante [mailto:rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu]
Sent: 07 April 2005 18:01
To: KevinBenson
Cc: registry at ivoa.net
Subject: RE: registry-updatable data


On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, KevinBenson wrote:
> I think we might want to come up with "Use case" scenarios of how apps
will
> use it.

The use case we've had in mind is that an application will want to issue a
query like (assuming verificationLevel is an attribute as originally
proposed):

  where @xsi:type=SimpleImageAccess and @verificationLevel>=1

(where verificationLevel=1 means that it has passed software
verification).  The motivation is that the application (like DataScope) is
doing a complex workflow using many services, and it can only afford to
deal with fully compliant services.

cheers,
Ray