RofR

[Tony Linde]

> Would there be a Registry record for this "local" registry 
> that propogates to the full registries, or would that be 
> hidden as well?  

Nope - all hidden - it doesn't exist to the world.

>   1) To know which registry a record originated from so that 
> problems with 
>        it can be tracked down.  

The trail will end at the managing registry - you'll have to take it from
there on foot.

> Does anyone outside of the managing registry need to 
> understand this distinction? 

Nope - all internal - invisible to the VObs.
 
Cheers,
Tony. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Plante [mailto:rplante at ncsa.uiuc.edu] 
> Sent: 11 April 2005 20:10
> To: Tony Linde
> Cc: registry at ivoa.net
> Subject: RE: RofR
> 
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Tony Linde wrote:
> > Thanks, Ray. That's fine - we can have it both ways. 
> Registries which 
> > want to be harvested every night can add their details into 
> the RofR  
> > and those which don't stay out of it.
> 
> Okay, I can see this working.  We put down a path forward for 
> aggregating the harvesting, but we have something simpler in 
> place that will work in the near term.  
> 
> > So let's bring back the local registry. If a data centre 
> doesn't want 
> > to be bothered by the world knocking on its door every night, it 
> > simply sets up a private arrangement with another registry to be 
> > harvested on a regular basis (or when it asks for 
> harvesting) and the rest of the VObs is none the wiser.
> 
> Would there be a Registry record for this "local" registry 
> that propogates to the full registries, or would that be 
> hidden as well?  
> 
> The reason I ask is that there is actually two purposes we've 
> discussed for listing authority IDs in the Registry record.  
>   1) To know which registry a record originated from so that 
> problems with 
>        it can be tracked down.  
>   2) To aid in harvesting aggregation.  
> 
> > The registry which manages these records for the local one 
> will need 
> > some way of identifying the authIDs it owns and those it 
> manages for 
> > other local registries but, again, this is invisible to the 
> outside world.
> 
> Does anyone outside of the managing registry need to 
> understand this distinction?  (How would they use this 
> information?)  If not, then you might consider this "internal 
> data" and thus need not be incorporated into the standard 
> metadata.  The exception might be if a Registry record for 
> the local registry does not propagate to the world; if so, 
> there would be no record of where its authority IDs come 
> from.  In any case, it's not clear that the distinction 
> between owned and managed is all that important.  
> 
> As for (2) above, I rather think that it's not the authority 
> ID that you should be tracking, but rather a registry handle 
> of some sort (IVOA ID or OAI base URL, whatever's 
> appropriate).  Again, if the local registry is to be hidden, 
> then this would be "internal data" not exported.  
> 
> cheers,
> Ray
> 
>