RofR

[Tony Linde]

Hi Kev,

> 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?

No, these were two different concepts. The local registry was one I
introduced, initially to describe the invisible registries which were only
known to one publishing registry which was responsible for putting their
records onto the VObs. Let's drop that idea - there is no such thing as far
as the VObs is concerned. The AstroGrid registry will offer a facility like
this to data publishers who don't want the responsibility for publishing
metadata but we'll talk about this offline - it is nothing to do with the
IVOA.

The 'special' registry is one which only provides a subset of resource
records. Initially, the idea for this was that a registry would only
harvest, say, records with a keyword of 'Xray' or might only store records
which it deems 'acceptable' and users and agents which only wanted to search
on this subset of records could use such a registry.

Now, we have registries which might only serve up a subset of resources
based on the schema used to encode the resource metadata. Whether these also
qualify as 'special' registries, I don't know.

> Does a Full Registry really need 
> to know about these local special registries? 

No, it doesn't.

Cheers,
Tony. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: KevinBenson [mailto:kmb at mssl.ucl.ac.uk] 
> Sent: 12 April 2005 09:19
> 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
> >
> >
> 
> 
>