RofR

[Gretchen Greene]

Kevin,

I think it would be a good idea to have the local/special registries
published at minimum as registry resources either via Full registy or
rofR in situations where resource providers need to propagate changes to
resources to prevent false publication, etc.   This doesn't mean that
the local registry needs to publish contents though...i agree that isn't
necessary..


-Gretchen

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registry at eso.org [mailto:owner-registry at eso.org] On Behalf
Of KevinBenson
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 4:19 AM
To: Tony Linde; registry at ivoa.net
Subject: RE: RofR


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
>
>