Mistakes in registry

[Aurelien Stebe]

Just to answer a few comments to messages I read.

Ray, yes I had a look at your ConeSeach checker. It's very good and 
looks a lot
like the approach I used for SIAP curation (except that you have a nice 
web page for presentation :)  ).
I would definitly be interested in sharing efforts on this. Let's do 
that out of the list.

Jean-Christophe and Noel, as we all can see curation of resources and 
services begins to be a
real hot topic. Though, I think we should distinguish 3 types of 
curation or validation.
The resource entry in the registry (valid, complete and up to date), the 
service/application
(if it's a IVOA service, it has to be compliant with the specification) 
and finaly the
quality of the data or application itself, which can be, as Noel pointed 
out, quite tricky.

I think that for the moment the first 2 types are the most important.
There is also the reliability issue (slow servers, down from time to 
time, 404 errors, ...)
that could be talked about. Is it taken into account in the 
"validationLevel" element ?

Cheers,
Aurelien

Ray Plante wrote:

>Hi Aurelien,  
>
>On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Aurelien Stebe wrote:
>  
>
>>I would just like to inform you of similar efforts done here at ESAC
>>concerning the curation issue, as you were not present at the last 
>>interop in Madrid.
>>    
>>
>
>This is great--sounds like we are definitely on the same page here.  
>
>I'd very much like to see what you're doing with checking registry entries 
>and service; perhaps we could share efforts.  Have you had a look at the 
>ConeSearch checker I posted?  Is this similar at all with what you are 
>doing?  Do you see opportunities for leveraging each other's work?  
>
>cheers,
>Ray
>
>
>
>  
>