Featherweight Publishing Registries

[francoise.genova at astro.unistra.fr]

We also have to be extremely careful before changing the registry for two key 'political' reasons:
. because it is reused by other disciplines, which is very important because it demonstrates that IVOA developments are adopted beyond astronomy. 
. because OAI-PMH allows interoperability  with a wide range of open archive resources and the European 'overarching' project EUDAT, which in turns allows us to demonstrate that astronomical data is not an isolated island. 

Many of us continuously have to make these points, which are more and more critical in particular in countries were funding on data aspects comes in generic calls, and not through disciplinary funding any more. There was a good reason to keep the Dublin core fully in the registry metadata as a requirement.

These points require very careful consideration. As explained by Alberto, there may be paths forward but this requires a serious assessment.

Francoise

Envoyé depuis mon appareil Android.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Accomazzi, Alberto" <aaccomazzi at cfa.harvard.edu>
To: Walter Landry <wlandry at caltech.edu>
Cc: registry at ivoa.net
Sent: ven., 21 oct. 2016 23:44
Subject: Re: Featherweight Publishing Registries

Hi Walter,

It sounds like you are suggesting that we throw away OAI-PMH and start
using an approach based on crawling documents and following links.  My
first reaction is that it seems silly to deprecate a well-established
mechanism for sharing resources just because the particular implementation
you are using has poor performance.  At a minimum you should explore other
options such as mod_oai (http://www.modoai.org/) or an OAI driver which
directly hooks into your database.

Even if we decided that OAI-PMH is now getting a bit long in the tooth, I
would suggest considering more modern and widespread standards designed for
this purpose rather than reinventing the wheel.  Many of us (I think)
already support web crawlers by using the sitemap protocol (
http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.html).  We could go even further and use
ResourceSync which simply builds on top of sitemap and is expected to be
the successor to OAI-PMH: http://www.openarchives.org/rs/toc

-- Alberto




On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Walter Landry <wlandry at caltech.edu> wrote:

> Pierre Fernique wrote:
> > I'm not sure that I understand your intention. Do you want to start a
> > discussion on a new or alternate registry protocol ? Is your FPR
> > proposal should be an alternative to the OAIP solution for non
> > publishing VO registries ?
> > I'm not at all a OAI fan but I think that we have to look carefully
> > which impacts can have a such evolution.
>
> FPR is an alternative protocol for publishing registries.  I was not
> aiming it towards other types of registries because I have no
> experience with implementing or running those.
>
> Cheers,
> Walter Landry
>



-- 
Dr. Alberto Accomazzi
Principal Investigator
NASA Astrophysics Data System - http://ads.harvard.edu
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics - http://www.cfa.harvard.edu
60 Garden St, MS 83, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/registry/attachments/20161022/f2a64122/attachment.html>