Sets for Registry Interface

[Gretchen Greene]

Okay,  yes I missed the point that these sets were going to be dropped.
That's more than fine with me.
As said before,  we can always provide optional sets but would be good
to differentiate between the local published resources and then the full
set (including those harvested from other registries).  Not sure what
the resolution is from that earlier discussion but again...i do not mind
deferring this.

-Gretchen

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registry at eso.org [mailto:owner-registry at eso.org] On Behalf
Of Ray Plante
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:35 PM
To: registry at ivoa.net
Subject: Re: Sets for Registry Interface


Hey Gretchen,

Good comments.  

First I should mention that a bunch of this text needs to be cut.  At 
Victoria, we decided to drop all of the defined sets except for 
ivo_managed.  We might experimentally support some of these dropped
sets; 
however, most of these have not been used.  

That said, does this disappoint you at all?  should we revisit this?

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Gretchen Greene wrote:
> Hopefully this doesn't sound too nit picky here,  but in rereading the

> section on sets I think there can be some clarification made because 
> these are going to be more key to harvesting uniformly. Is this TBD 
> with Appendix A.3?  Specifically, the first sentence quotes from the 
> OAI ref 'optional construct' then at the end of the paragraph there 
> are two required sets for the harvestable registries.  While those of 
> us that are trying to adopt the RI standard are familiar,  it is a 
> little confusing if you aren't reading the full explanation.

I understand what you mean.  We can tighten this up a bit.  

hope this helps,
Ray