RofR

[Ray Plante]

Hi Tony,

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Tony Linde wrote:
> 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.

I think this is a little circular.  We never said that only one full 
registry can harvest from a publishing registry.  As I 
remember it, owned/managed was motivated as a way of trading records 
across VO projects.  That is, there was a desire to reduce, for example, 
the number of US registries that AstroGrid would have to harvest from.  
This was desirable because it was pressumed to be simpler and have less 
overhead from a performance stand-point.  Our discussions have illustrated 
that the former is not all that correct.  RofR posits that the latter is 
not that big a deal. 

I think the important thing to realize is that in the US, we currently 
have 2 "full" registries based on different technologies and feature 
different interactive user interfaces and excell in different ways.  This 
is a Good Thing in my book.  Under the aggregation system, one has to be 
annointed the "US Full Registry".  If you say that a publishing registry 
can only harvest from one full registry, then one is complete subserviant 
to the other.  It's really not necessary.

> extensions

This issue of supporting/storing non-standard extensions is mostly a 
red-herring.  We'll have to deal with it separately.  It's only an issue 
in that when we do deal with it, how far non-standard extension records 
propogate through the hierarchical model will depend on the practice of 
the annointed full registry of a region.  

cheers,
Ray