new take on resource registration best practice

[Ray Plante]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Marco Molinaro wrote:
>       Therefore, I'd say these "served-by" capabilities should have
>       special
>       standardIds (maybe just the normal standard ids with
>       "?service-for"
>       appended?).
> 
> I'd prefer something that does not require parsing (am I monotonous?), 
> but the idea of clearly stating the "service-for" I think would be useful
> for clients.

I don't think any parsing is necessary, at least in the RegTAP case.
(For the moment, I'm not sure which type gets the "?service-for"
suffix; bear with me.) 

If you want the federated TAP service resource, you would have the
constraint, "standard_id='ivo://ivoa.net/std/TAP?service-for'".  If you
want the resources for the individual catalogs that are supported by
that federated service, you would use
"standard_id='ivo://ivoa.net/std/TAP'".  If you want both, use
"standard_id LIKE 'ivo://ivoa.net/std/TAP%'".

> The first one is about authorities/organizations and so on.
> I'm ok in best practicing their usage, but could this lead also in some
> alongside best practice with IVORNs? New publishers entering the
> VO may find it useful to have some guidelines for it.
> Is this only a dream of mine?

No!  I'd like that, too.  Do you have some guidelines in mind you'd
like to see?  

> The second is only a question about the "case 2: data repository".
> Shouldn't each collection in it have a "part-of" relationship 
> to the repository DataCollection2, like it happens with Data Center
> individual mission resources?
> If not, can you explain me why? (probably my fault, but I cannot see it).

Yes, it should.  Good point.

cheers,
Ray