Extensions on the registry

[Tony Linde]

I think the question has to be: if even only one project has developed and
implemented a registry which does store and allow the searching of *all*
resources, whatever extensions they use, is anyone really going to install
another product which offers less functionality (for use as a 'full'
registry that is)? Who will want to attach their own software to a less
effective registry if fully effective ones exist?

If the answer is 'No' and 'No-one', then we are wasting our time discussing
this and how to accommodate partially effective registries: let's simply
make the standard that every 'full' registry must store and allow the
searching and return of resources whatever schema they are written to.

If someone then wants to write a product which does not meet this standard,
they are free to do so and to use it but without being able to say it is
IVOA compliant.

T.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registry at eso.org [mailto:owner-registry at eso.org] 
> On Behalf Of Ray Plante
> Sent: 12 April 2005 19:40
> To: registry at ivoa.net
> Subject: Re: Extensions on the registry
> 
> (thanks, Kevin, for branching another thread.  It's really 
> critical for working through these issues to be able to 
> separate them when ever possible.  divide and conquer!)
> 
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, KevinBenson wrote:
> > Does everybody agree that we should be able to on Full Registries 
> > store all Resources including extension Resources?
> 
> My current take, personally, is that Full registries *should* 
> store all records, even though they contain extensions; 
> however, I'm not sure I would go as far as "must", since this 
> has potentially substantial implementation issues.  The next 
> question is, what does this do to the meaning of "Full"?  If 
> a registry does not include extensions, is it allowed to 
> declare itself full, or can we live with a fuzzier definition?  
> 
> > Would it be okay if certain Full Registries would not be 
> able to query 
> > on them and possibly never query on them (them being the extension 
> > part of the schema's)?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
>