conventions for registering collections

[Andy Lawrence]

I should add that I am resisting a surge of nostalgia for VO Explorer, which of course is not supported anymore. I spent some time trying to map registry-speak into user-concepts, and got reasonably far along, but just as you imply, the limiting factor was the quality and consistency of the information in registry entries.

But the provider / app writer thing links up : once providers see how people are using the tools, it should become clearer to them what is really wanted in a particular box.

  andy 


------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Lawrence : Regius Professor of Astronomy, University of Edinburgh
Institute for Astronomy,  Royal Observatory, Blackford Hill, Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ
Email al at roe.ac.uk   /  Phone +44-(0)131-668-8346  / Skype andyxlawrence
Admin contact : Paula Wilkie 0131-668-8403 paw at roe.ac.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.















On 30 Apr 2012, at 18:33, Ray Plante wrote:

Hi folks,

In Naples, I believe it was, Markus gave a presentation that proposed 
a "best practice" for registering data to the registry.  Based on my 
recent studies of how the registry is used in discovery--and how it 
confuses users--I agree that something like this is needed.  In 
particular, I hope to see us launch a steady migration of our 
registered resources to a common convention so that we can make search 
results more comprehensible to both users and applications.  The first 
step is to decide what that convention should be.  

Therefore, I would like to propose that we put the topic on the RWG 
agenda in Urbana, and I would like to nominate Markus to reprise 
and/or revise his presentation.  Given that he presented this before, 
it might be good to get some pre-discussion going before then.

thoughts?
Ray Plante








-- 
Scanned by iCritical.