Extensions on the registry

[Tony Linde]

Sorry, first comment should be:

> No - registry does not 'present' the data in any way - any such feature
would need to be extra functionality offered by a registry.

T.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registry at eso.org [mailto:owner-registry at eso.org] 
> On Behalf Of Tony Linde
> Sent: 13 April 2005 10:26
> To: registry at ivoa.net
> Subject: RE: Extensions on the registry
> 
> > If "query" means "extract metadata from resource documents, 
> transform 
> > and present to user as XHTML", then clearly a given 
> registry can't do 
> > this properly for unknown extensions.
> > (Nominating XSLT stylesheets in processing instructions might help.)
> 
> No - registry does not 'present' the data in any way.
> 
> > If "query" means "return the resource document matching a 
> given IVOID" 
> > then that works with or without extensions.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > If "query" means "return XML fragments extracted from resource 
> > documents according to some query language such as XQuery or ADQL" 
> > then it's less clear.
> 
> No - any such function would need to be extra functionality 
> offered by a registry (e.g. by offering an XQuery interface).
> 
> Cheers,
> Tony. 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registry at eso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registry at eso.org] On Behalf 
> > Of Guy Rixon
> > Sent: 13 April 2005 09:53
> > To: Ray Plante
> > Cc: registry at ivoa.net
> > Subject: Re: Extensions on the registry
> > 
> > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Ray Plante wrote:
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Doesn't it depend on what you mean by query?
> > 
> > If "query" means "extract metadata from resource documents, 
> transform 
> > and present to user as XHTML", then clearly a given 
> registry can't do 
> > this properly for unknown extensions.
> > (Nominating XSLT stylesheets in processing instructions might help.)
> > 
> > If "query" means "return the resource document matching a 
> given IVOID" 
> > then that works with or without extensions.
> > 
> > If "query" means "return XML fragments extracted from resource 
> > documents according to some query language such as XQuery or ADQL" 
> > then it's less clear.
> > My guess is that an XQuery or XPath query would work even on 
> > resources-with-extensions and that an ADQL/SQL query might have 
> > problems.
> > 
> > I think we should mandate the
> > return-entire-document-matching-IVOID query for all 
> registries even in 
> > the presence of extended documents. (I'd also prefer XQuery 
> over ADQL 
> > for the structured query, but that's a separate issue.)
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Guy
> > 
> > Guy Rixon 				        gtr at ast.cam.ac.uk
> > Institute of Astronomy   	                Tel: +44-1223-337542
> > Madingley Road, Cambridge, UK, CB3 0HA		Fax: 
> > +44-1223-337523
> > 
> 
>