Mistakes in registry

[Aurelien Stebe]

The typo is really not a problem, you're not the first one.  :)

I saw those level description in the Resource Metadata document,
but in case someone didn't it's good to have the reference.
The first two types of verification I mentioned are clearly level 1 and 2.
Level 3 and 4 are yet less clear, do we consider for example data
quality to be level 4 and what about reliability ? It could be left aside.

Cheers,
Aurelien

Gretchen Greene wrote:

>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
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>