RofR

[Tony Linde]

> I disagree. A domain specific registry, e.g. one that 
> contains resources of relevance to the GRB community, can 

Yes, we always had subject-specific registries in mind but never wanted to
classify them separately: they are just a form of full registry. Maybe one
day we'll want to flag them as not really full but not necessary atm.

> The options for a registry are really:
> - is it a publishing registry (I can harvest the records it maintains)

No, you cannot. Only one full registry can harvest the records of a
publishing registry. And it is that full registry that manages the authIDs
owned by the publishing registry.

That is the definition of full and publishing registry that we were working
with at the Harvard interop meeting from which we came up with the owned and
managed authIDs concept.

If you want to change what was agreed then, fine, but you'll need to either
come up with new terms or make it clear how you are redefining the terms we
have been using so far.

> I also think we need to drop this idea of a full registry 
> because supporting every variant schema that every astronomer 
> comes up is unrealistic 

It has nothing to do with the astronomer. It is the owner of a registry and
the people they authorise to add records who may come up with new schema. If
your only public means of adding a record to a registry only allows the user
to add specific types of data then that is all you will get.

> (and this has nothing to do with 
> relational/native XML implementation), e.g. is Astrogrid 
> intending to support the horrible hack schema that identifies 
> records from the Penge Local Astronomy Youth Club?  

You're mixing up supporting a schema with storing it. You do not have to
support a schema in order to store it. If someone adds a record with a
schema not supported by any software then it won't be used by anyone. That
does not stop the registry from storing it. The registry mandates that
certain information must be included (VOResource) but whatever is added
beyond that - the registry is unaware of it. If someone stores a record with
some schema extension that only one piece of software knows about then only
that piece of software will use the data stored under that extension.

> I think 
> we should have an extra piece of metadata on the Registry 
> record which lists the schemata that the registry supports 
> and this should also have one method on the Registry 
> Interface at least: 
> getSupportedSchema() - may also isSupported(XMLSchema mySchema)?

As I said, the registry does not 'support' anything except voresource and a
few known extensions. It ought to be able to store anything though.

Cheers,
Tony. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registry at eso.org [mailto:owner-registry at eso.org] 
> On Behalf Of Matthew J. Graham
> Sent: 11 April 2005 16:30
> To: Tony Linde
> Cc: registry at ivoa.net; 'Roy Williams'
> Subject: Re: RofR
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Apr 11, 2005, at 6:31 AM, Tony Linde wrote:
> 
> >
> > If a registry supports a query interface, it is a full 
> registry - it 
> > must contain all resource records (therefore must harvest 
> from other 
> > registries in order to do so).
> 
> I disagree. A domain specific registry, e.g. one that 
> contains resources of relevance to the GRB community, can 
> support the query interface because GRB folks want to be able 
> to search it but does not need to hold all resource records 
> which the GRB people have no interest in and would be extra 
> admin for the registry maintainer.
> 
> The options for a registry are really:
> - is it a publishing registry (I can harvest the records it maintains)
> - is it a "full" registry (it contains most records which I 
> can access)
> 
> The availability of a search interface has nothing to do with 
> the size of the contents.
> 
> I also think we need to drop this idea of a full registry 
> because supporting every variant schema that every astronomer 
> comes up is unrealistic (and this has nothing to do with 
> relational/native XML implementation), e.g. is Astrogrid 
> intending to support the horrible hack schema that identifies 
> records from the Penge Local Astronomy Youth Club?  I think 
> we should have an extra piece of metadata on the Registry 
> record which lists the schemata that the registry supports 
> and this should also have one method on the Registry 
> Interface at least: 
> getSupportedSchema() - may also isSupported(XMLSchema mySchema)?
> 
> 	Cheers,
> 
> 	Matthew
> 
>