RofR

[KevinBenson]

Yes I agree, I think that both concepts would be good.  As you say no
anointing of full registries, you might have Heasarc managed by Carnivore
and NCSA managed by STSCI or neither.  I do think there should be some
encouragement though to do this, otherwise a lot of publishing registries
will never let a Full Registry manage their authority id's.  As you say Tony
maybe it is just a recommendation on smaller publishing registries that do
not have a lot of resources.

On another note we keep talking about this centralized registry at
www.ivoa.net this seems fine, but if nobody minds having a lot of the same
duplicate entries coming back from a OAI harvest (or putting back the
GetRegistries interface method), then you could potentially just let the
Full Registries return back any new/updated Registry Types.  Then a
publishing registry just needs to register with any Full Registry.

There was talk of a local/special registry or "private publishing registry"
and have a Full Registry be able to manage these as well; is that correct?
Why bother, my notion of a local registry is one that much like a full
registry it will contain a search interface and be able to harvest external
registries if it desired (some or all external registries).  It might even
have all the Resources like a Full Registry.  The only difference is that it
is hidden from the world, so there should be no tracking at all and I don't
see why any Full Registry needs to keep track of it.  The only one who
should know its existence is the person who setup the registry and people
who setup apps to point at that registry.  Does a Full Registry really need
to know about these local special registries? (is there a thought that they
will not have a search interface?)

Cheers,
Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registry at eso.org [mailto:owner-registry at eso.org]On Behalf Of
Tony Linde
Sent: 11 April 2005 19:50
To: registry at ivoa.net
Subject: RE: RofR


My take was that there will be lots of full registries, not just one or two
per country but probably at least one per portal installation and app centre
to make searching faster. So probably hundreds around the world. Then, for
those just publishing a few datasets who didn't want to be bothered with
being harvested by all these registries every night, they could upload their
records to a nearby full registry: and the easiest way of doing that was
simply to run a cut down registry app which is harvested by only one other
registry. Made life easier.

But as I said in my previous email - we can have both concepts implemented.

> hierarchical model will depend on the practice of the
> annointed full registry of a region.

Again, I don't think there will be any annointed full registries but
hundreds of them.

Cheers,
Tony.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registry at eso.org [mailto:owner-registry at eso.org]
> On Behalf Of Ray Plante
> Sent: 11 April 2005 19:20
> To: registry at ivoa.net
> Subject: RE: RofR
>
> 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
>
>