new RI document

[KevinBenson]

Excellent stuff Aurelien thanks for your comments.  Ray also sent me 
back a doc with some changes, I will place your comments/changes to that 
document and try to put a new version up tomorrow afternoon.  I put some 
of your answers to your questions below.

cheers,
Kevin

Aurelien Stebe wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> I reviewed the doc and here are a few comments :
>
> - Should we write in the RI that the "Search" and "KeywordSearch" 
> methods must return only "active" (and maybe "inactive") resources ? I 
> don't think "deleted" resources should be returned in a search, they 
> should be when using the harvest interface. Of course, "GetResource" 
> would return the resource whatever the status is.
Hmmm I can't quite remember what we discussed a long time ago about 
Search(ADQL) and KeywordSearch returning only active entries.  I could 
easily go either way.  What do other people think in the reg list? Or 
maybe Aurelien if you want post it as a separate thread on the reg list.
>
> - Two small questions to make the "from" and "to" search parameters 
> clearer : are Registries allowed to return less resources than asked ? 
> If the user wants "from=1" and "to=1000", may I return only 500 
> entries because that's my Registry limit ? and is the "to" parameter 
> inclusive or not (really a detail, but well ...).
Yes you can return less than what the client asks for, I thought it was 
in the RI spec, but maybe it got deleted.  The "to" is optional and does 
not have to be with the "from".
>
> - Should we allow for Strings search in KeywordSearch ? I mean allow 
> the user to search for "black hole" without having it separated into 2 
> words. We could write that expressions enclosed in double quotes must 
> be treated as one unique word.
Yes I can see what your saying might make the RI spec a little more 
confusing to put in a couple of exceptions, but I could see it being 
useful.  What do other people think?
>
> - Two small typos : in the list of metadata to search in 2.3 the last 
> one is missing "content" -> "content/type". Also, namespaces prefixes 
> should be deleted to be consistent. In 2.4 : "IVOA searchable 
> registries can optionally implement the GetResource ....". Isn't it a 
> compulsory method ?
Aha thanks and yes GetResource is required.
>
> - In 2.6 : I don't think the VOSI should be mentioned here since it is 
> not a Rec yet. It puts a dependence on the RI for passing to Rec 
> level. If a "getRegistration" is needed in the future it might come 
> along with the VOSI, or we might add it to the Search interface of RI 
> v1.1  . If it is needed now, it should be in the Search interface of 
> the RI v1.0  .
Well I really think we need a getRegistration of some type now.  Either 
by dictating the VOSI method (which I now realize we would need to 
specify it to be on the same endpoint as the Search)  or by making a new 
interface method.  The main reason is a client that needs to see if 
XQuery is supported or if it is a full registry or not and needs that 
registration entry to determine those abilities.  I am all for placing 
"back" a getRegistration entry for our Registries we had it in the very 
early versions of the RI, but for some reason we took it out.
>
> - In 3.1.1 : "ListRecords : [....] ,as well as the resources of the 
> Registry type. [....]" . I guess this is from previous versions of the 
> RI. The "ListRecords" used with "set=ivo_managed" should return 
> managed entries and those only. Also, it should be written that if no 
> "set" is specified, ALL records will be returned (or is it obvious ?)
>
> Other than that, I think it is pretty much ready for PR. The Registry 
> extension schema will need to be attached, as we decided each 
> specification is responsible for providing the schema extension. I 
> didn't read the WSDLs, but I guess we will only need to check those 
> later, to make sure they reflect the doc.
>
> Cheers,
> Aurelien
>
>
> KevinBenson wrote:
>> There is a new RI document (0.8.2) located at IVOA (see links 
>> below).  There are still a few areas that need to be cleared up, but 
>> would like to start getting comments from the group.
>> Also note my last e-mail subject "Two questions about xsi:type" would 
>> be good to have some replies/comments on that e-mail especially 
>> question 2.
>> A final note the RI currently says ADQL 1.0, I will check on the 
>> version of the ADQL-Core schema to see how it fits into the RI document.
>>
>> Thank you in advance for any comments and information about the RI 
>> document,
>> Kevin
>>
>> Word doc - 
>> http://www.ivoa.net/internal/IVOA/RegistryInterface/RegistryInterface-v0.8.2.doc 
>>
>> PDF doc - 
>> http://www.ivoa.net/internal/IVOA/RegistryInterface/RegistryInterface-v0.8.2.pdf 
>>
>> Main RI site - http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/RegistryInterface