proposed VODataService changes

[Doug Tody]

On Tue, 20 May 2008, Ray Plante wrote:
> There is at least one place I would recommend some flattening: I'm
> wondering if we really need to capture the database schema as a new
> element layer (<schema>) between a <catalog> and <table>.  Can we instead
> do something like this?
>
>     <catalog>
>       <name>The X survey catalog</name>
>       <description>...</description>
>       <table>
>          <schema>...</schema>
>          <name>...</name>
>          <description>...</description>
>          <column>...</column>
>          <column>...</column>
>          ...
>       </table>
>       <function>                      <!-- optional -->
>          <schema>...</schema>
>          <name>...</name>
>          ...
>       </function>
>       <join>                          <!-- optional -->
>          ...
>       </join>
>     </catalog>
>
> In this case, if the <schema> element is omitted, the default schema is
> assumed.

The above suggestion is also the way this is addressed in the SQL
information schema.  Another option, which we were considering before
there was mention of explicitly adding a separate "schema" element,
is to include this information in the table name as in "<schema>.<table>".

	- Doug