Registry in RSS

[Rob Seaman]

Not sure why this would be heresy - VOEvent is a pretty agnostic  
standard.  Is the current specification sufficient to the task?  By  
all means go for it.  Need new features?  Tell us what they are.  You  
would want to use a Stream separate from the various celestial feeds.

Rob
---

On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Mike Fitzpatrick wrote:

> Not quite what I meant:  I know there are numerous feeds for actual
> "VOEvents", what I was proposing was a feed for "VO Events" like
> the availability of a new resource, overlaying the voevent  
> infrastructure,
> e.g. not that the Catalina Sky Survey found an object, but that the
> CSS is now a broker for "Bob's-really-cool-GRB-followup-on-his- 
> GalileoScope"
> program.
>
> The heretical part is that I see 'events' as a type of message, and  
> little
> difference between a GRB "stream" subscription, a "KBO" one, and
> a "general msg" one.  Is the idea "there is something new on the sky"
> really that much different than "there is something new in the  
> Registry"?
> Note I'm not quite yet suggesting IVOA address these cross-WG issues,
> neither do I see a need for an emerging discussion on a new protocol
> for Tweet/Rss that shares many similarities (at least wrt the 90/10  
> rule)
> with existing standards.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Roy Williams  
> <roy at cacr.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Mike Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>>
>>> And for a bit of heresy:  Should/can a new
>>> Tweet/Rss be used in the context of VOEvent (where 'event' is  
>>> generalized
>>> to something beyond the sky but is a type of 'VO' message)?
>>>
>>
>> This is already happening. The Skyalert twitter feed(*) carries  
>> events from
>> several ongoing projects, and also carries the interpretation of  
>> the event
>> ("it was a supernova").
>>
>> (*) http://twitter.com/skyalert
>>
>> --
>>
>> California Institute of Technology
>> 626 395 3670
>>
>>