role of the registry

[Robert Hanisch]

I don't really have the time right now to engage in this lively debate, but
it does bother me to see history being rewritten in order to support certain
points of view.

The registry was conceived as a resource location service.  The formative
document describes resource metadata.  The name of the working group is
Resource Registry.  There has been debate for a long time on how far to push
the registry in the direction of detailed service-level metadata.  The
origins were simple, however.  The "radical change to the way the VO works"
is coming from adding increasing complexity and overhead to a simple
concept.  This is not unique to the registry, but it is clear in the case of
the registry that even the simple stuff is not done well or completely.

I have never been convinced by the arguments for including things like table
column names and UCDs in the registry.  The use case recently cited, that of
dynamically building SEDs by locating catalogs with relevant columns would,
I think, never be trusted by astronomers doing research.  They trust NED
SEDs because astronomers working for NED collect and curate the
measurements.  In the VO case, they need to assess the quality of a resource
before deciding to use/trust its contents.

I suggest that everyone take a deep breath, step away from their desks for a
while, and try to recall what the VO is really about.  Key issues are data
discovery, interoperability, and a low barrier to participation.

This should be an interesting Interop meeting!

Bob