RofR

[Tony Linde]

> Yes, but a search against some of those extension parts will 
> not then work so you are not fully searchable :-^ 

Good point, Matthew. We simply have to accept that some registry
implementations cannot search on some extensions without those extensions
being hard coded in.

> I think 
> having a list of supported schema per registry gives us the 
> graduation that is required instead of trying to use binary 
> categories like full/not full which plainly do not work.

You only need the list for registry implementations which cannot handle
extensions without recoding so the default (i.e. if no schemas listed) would
be that the registry allows searching of the whole registry.

So, given that, I think that adding this information into a registry
resource record would make sense.

Cheers,
Tony. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew J. Graham [mailto:mjg at cacr.caltech.edu] 
> Sent: 11 April 2005 18:37
> To: Wil O'Mullane
> Cc: registry at ivoa.net; Tony Linde
> Subject: Re: RofR
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > just to say our relational system will store the voresource 
> part of a 
> > record but may ignore the Extyension part. So it could still have 
> > record of ALL entries..
> > If someone had a different schema not extending rvoresource 
> we would 
> > not store it at all
> 
> Yes, but a search against some of those extension parts will 
> not then work so you are not fully searchable :-^ I think 
> having a list of supported schema per registry gives us the 
> graduation that is required instead of trying to use binary 
> categories like full/not full which plainly do not work.
> 
> 	Cheers,
> 
> 	Matthew
> 
> > wil
> >>> 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 disagree: what is a registry = something that can store records
> >> (conceptual) but how something is stored is an 
> implementation detail 
> >> and that necessarily means that the only thing that can be 
> stored is 
> >> what is supported, i.e. this particular record can be 
> stored because 
> >> I have implemented a storage model for it.
> >>
> >> 	Cheers,
> >>
> >> 	Matthew
> 
>