Status element in OAI-PMH envelope, managed authorities declared by registries, and RegTAP

[Pierre Le Sidaner]

On 11/04/2014 02:06 PM, Markus Demleitner wrote:
> Hi Menelaos,
>
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:43:26PM +0100, Menelaus Perdikeas wrote:
>> Consider the following scenario: a resource was hosted in a
>> registry A and was later, for some reasons, migrated by its owner
>> to another registry B. In an IVOA context this should presumably
>> also require that the managed authorities of both registries be
>> updated to reflect the migration of the resource(s).
>>
>> Assuming OAI-PMH support for deletions in repository A, should the
>> repository A now report the migrated record as "deleted" or not?
>>
>> This has ramifications for RegTAP. When harvesting a repository if
>> I see that a record is "deleted" (in the OAI-PMH envelope sense)
>> then I proceed to also purge it from the RegTAP database (as per
>> RegTAP's requirement that  "deleted" and "inactive" records are not
>> maintained - although that "deleted" refers to the "status"
>> attribute of the VOResource, not the OAI-PMH envelope's "status"
>> element).
> The case of a moving authority poses some subtle problems, indeed,
> and you are probably right that we need to be more careful in
> describing the desired behaviour.
>
>> Does the above make sense? If so, it is important that managed
>> authorities declared by registries are correctly maintained when
>> resources are migrated (a rare event at any rate).
> I believe your treatment makes sense; and of course, maintaining an
> essentially perfect registry - authority mapping makes many registry
> problems much easier (which is why I propose to give the RofR a
> stronger role there).
>
> What I'd suggest as concrete rules for authority moves would look
> like:
>
>    (1) Searchable registries detecting a move of an authority from one
>    registry to another should schedule a full reharvest of both the
>    originating and the receiving registry.
>
>    (2) When an authority moves from one registry to another, deleted
>    records should be moved along if at all possible.  The originating
>    registry should stop handing out records with the moved authority
>    immediately, at least not within its ivo_managed set.  In particular,
>    it should not generate deleted records for the records that left the
>    registry.
>
> I've put down as much on
> http://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/RegistryInterfacesNext --
> comments, changes and critique welcome there and/or here.
>
> Cheers,
>
>        Markus
>
Hi all

As I was in this case :
we have first move from NVO registry to Euro-VO registry and it was a 
nightmare, as you describe it
Then we have moved from Euro-VO to a publishing registry changing all 
the ivo-ID, and the deletion was easy with no Ghost.

regards
Pierre

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Pierre Le Sidaner
                         Observatoire de Paris

Division Informatique de l'Observatoire
Observatoire Virtuel 01 40 51 20 89
61, avenue de l'Observatoire 75014 Paris

mailto:pierre.lesidaner at obspm.fr
http://vo.obspm.fr

--------------------------------------------------------------------------