Mistakes in registry

[Gretchen Greene]

Sorry about the name typo Aurelien...

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registry at eso.org [mailto:owner-registry at eso.org] On Behalf
Of Gretchen Greene
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:48 AM
To: registry at ivoa.net
Subject: RE: Mistakes in registry


Hi Aurelian,

The next VOResource schema standard will include the validationLevel.
Here are definitions that I received which may answer some of your
questions (I'm not sure where these are posted on the IVOA Twiki, Ray?).


-Gretchen



ResourceValidationLevel (int)

Definition:  A numeric grade describing the quality of the resource
description and interface, when applicable, to be used to indicate the
confidence an end-user can put in the resource as part of a VO
application or research study.  The allowed values are:

0        The resource has a description that is stored in a registry.
This
level does not imply a compliant description.

1        In addition to meeting the level 0 definition, the resource
description conforms syntactically to this standard and to the encoding
scheme used.

2        In addition to meeting the level 1 definition, the resource
description refers to an existing resource that has been demonstrated to
be functionally compliant.  When the resource is a service, it is
considered to exist and to be functionally compliant if use of the
Service.InterfaceURL or Service.BaseURL responds without error when used
as intended by the resource.  If the service is a standard one, it must
also demonstrate the response is syntactically compliant with the
service standard in order to be considered functionally compliant.  If
the resource is not a service, then the ReferenceURL must be shown to
return a document without error.

3        In addition to meeting the level 2 definition, the resource
description has been inspected by a human and judged to comply
semantically to this standard as well as meeting any additional minimum
quality criteria (e.g., providing values for important but non-required
metadata) set by the human inspector (see comment below).

4        In addition to meeting the level 3 definition, the resource
description meets additional quality criteria set by the human inspector
and is therefore considered an excellent description of the resource.
Consequently, the resource is expected to be operate well as part of a
VO application or research study.







-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registry at eso.org [mailto:owner-registry at eso.org] On Behalf
Of Aurelien Stebe
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:28 AM
To: registry at ivoa.net
Subject: Re: Mistakes in registry


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
>
>
>
>  
>