Home for the UWS Registry Extension?

[Markus Demleitner]

Hi Brian,

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 11:18:20AM -0800, Brian Major wrote:
> > > of a TAP 1.1 capability by setting the 'type' of the Interface element as
> > > one of either
> > >
> > >     uws:Sync or
> > >     uws:Async
> > >
> > > instead directly in the standardID of the capability like
> > >
> > >     ivo://ivoa.net/std/tap#sync-1.1 and
> > >     ivo://ivoa.net/std/tap#async-1.1
> > >
> > > We have implemented this in our TAP (1.1) services using the XSD here:
> > >
[...]
> > Work on VODataService 1.2 has started with
> > http://ivoa.net/documents/Notes/Regstc, which already has a draft
> > schema with some updates.
> 
> I'd say that adding it to VODataService is also too heavyweight for a
> number of reasons.  The extension may change to have content (rather than
> just acting as a 'tag') in the near future.  Having it described in this

Well, you'll have *at least* a year to develop it out even when it goes
into VODataService.  And once it's a REC, it shouldn't change too
often anyway, so I doubt flexibility really is an argument in whether
or not to put it into VODataService.

What is an argument in my book is the total number of specs,
namespaces, and schema files required to run TAP, and creating one
each just for two types seems... well... not lightweight to me.

> upstream spec would make it that much harder to change.  I'm in favour of
> keeping it close it's source.  That is, in GWS and associated with UWS.
> So, how about a short UWS Registry Extension note so we can get it approved
> relatively quickly ahead of TAP 1.1?  I'd be willing to write that up.

I think writing up a note is definitely a good idea.  You can have a
schema within the note (new feature in ivoatex! Yeah!), which
certainly is good for prototyping.  If the note leaves open whether
it itself will go on to REC or whether it's going to become normative
as part of VODataService 1.2: More power to you.

> Also, what about the version of the extension?  We currently have it at 0.1.

Mucking around with pre-1.0 versions in the namespaces has turned out
to be painful, at least in Registry, and encouraged infinite use of
beta-level schemas (there's still stuff in the Registry that's
never been a standard but for which there has been a standard for 10
years).  

I'd say: make it <...>/UWSRegExt/v1, and have a @version="0.x" on the
root element while reviewing the note, making it @version="1.0" when
it becomes a note.

It's an interesting question whether notes (in particular
non-endorsed notes) should be using http://ivoa.net namespaces (which
more or less implies that they change the IVOA schema repo).  To
stress the character as a proposal, it might be a good idea to think
about, say, http://cadc... namespace URIs (while still making them
resolvable).

            -- Markus

(who'd be happy to help out on a Note if you think that's useful)