Registry interfaces internal working draft

[Menelaos Perdikeas]

Hi Markus,

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Markus Demleitner <
msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:

>
> (a) Shouldn't the RofR be at least mentioned here?  While I agree
> that in everyday Registry operations, its impact is fairly moderate,
> mentioning here that the IVOA operates a special registry will, I
> think, make things much clearer.
>

As far as the new EuroVO codebase is concerned, the RofR is used for the
initial system bootstrapping (starting from a clean database) and
thereafter it continues to be periodically checked as a supplemental
mechanism of discovering new registries to harvest from. So yes, I feel it
should be mentioned.


>
> (b) I always felt it was a bit of a pain that you had to discover
> support for seconds-granularity in OAI-PMH before using it.  How
> would everyone feel about making it mandatory for VO publishing
> registries?
>

I second that. The fewer options the better.

(e) There's a recommendation to use the namespace URI as schema
>
location in the introduction to 3.  What was the intent of that
> recommendation?  Would anyone be cross if I removed it?


I second that as well. [schemaLocation] elements taint the XSD artifacts in
a half-hearted (being mere hints) attempt to address a non-functional
concern; the community should use other channels to communicate to
application developers the reference location of its XSDs.

Cheers,
Menelaus.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/registry/attachments/20150316/1335347e/attachment.html>