RofR

[Gretchen Greene]

It sure seems like these discussions are going in all directions and
there seems to be cross-over between how registries are required to
interoperate and standardize versus preferences in implementations.

Why would you need to hide a publishing registry record in a full
registry?  I don't understand why this is necessary in servicing the
community.  We have in our registry contents all the entries and types
that are harvested.  Isn't that something that registries can choose to
implement?  

-Gretchen



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registry at eso.org [mailto:owner-registry at eso.org] On Behalf
Of Tony Linde
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 3:41 PM
To: registry at ivoa.net
Subject: RE: RofR


> 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
> 
>