<html><head></head><body>Dear Markus, all,<div><br></div><div><div>Thank you Markus for these very interest suggestions!</div><div><br></div><div>I understand that some of these "anomalies" are not actually anomalies.. and we are thinking to not remove but to consider them as "warnings".</div><div><br></div><div>I have grouped them as follow:</div><div><br></div><div><div><b>Registry Anomalies Report</b></div><div><br></div><div><b>RoR registry resource anomalies</b></div><div>ROR-01 :: Common managed authority</div><div>ROR-02 :: Common managed authority prefix</div><div>ROR-03 :: Identical critical registry info</div><div>ROR-04 :: Same (case-insensitive) registry IVOA identifier</div><div>ROR-05 :: Same (case-insensitive) registry title</div><div>ROR-06 :: Same (case-insensitive) registry short name</div><div>ROR-07 :: Malformed OAI-PMH access URL</div><div>ROR-08 :: Same (case-insensitive) registry access URL</div><div>ROR-09 :: Same (URI-based check) registry access URL</div><div>ROR-11 :: A registry is not declared as a harvestable registry</div><div>ROR-16 :: Duplicate managed authority in RoR</div><div><br></div><div><b>RoR registry resource warnings</b></div><div>-> ROR-10 :: A registry doesn't contain a 'shortName' field</div><div>-> ROR-12 :: XSD-invalid RoR registry resource</div><div>-> ROR-13 :: Identifier in OAI-PMH namespace</div><div>-> ROR-14 :: Title in OAI-PMH namespace</div><div>-> ROR-15 :: Short name in OAI-PMH namespace</div><div><br></div><div><b>Harvested registry resource anomalies</b></div><div>HRV-01 :: Common managed authority</div><div>HRV-03 :: Identical critical registry info</div><div>HRV-04 :: Same (case-insensitive) registry IVOA identifier</div><div>HRV-05 :: Same (case-insensitive) registry title</div><div>HRV-06 :: Same (case-insensitive) registry short name</div><div>HRV-07 :: Malformed OAI-PMH access URL</div><div>HRV-08 :: Same (case-insensitive) registry access URL</div><div>HRV-09 :: Same (URI-based check) registry access URL</div><div><br></div><div><b>Harvested registry resource warnings</b></div><div>-> HRV-02 :: Common managed authority prefix</div><div>-> HRV-10 :: A registry doesn't contain a 'shortName' field</div><div>-> HRV-11 :: A registry is not declared as a harvestable registry</div><div><br></div><div><b>RoR - harvested registry records discrepencies</b></div><div>ROR-HRV-1 :: Registry in DB but not in RoR</div><div>ROR-HRV-2 :: OAI-PMH / RoR registry info discrepancy</div><div><br></div><div><b>Sui generis anomalies</b></div><div>SG-1 :: OAIPMH protocol failure</div><div>SG-2 :: OAIPMH duplicate set</div><div>SG-3 :: OAIPMH no ivo_managed set</div><div>SG-4 :: OAIPMH no data in ivo_managed / ivo_vor combo</div></div><div><br></div><div>(More info on site: http://registry.euro-vo.org/eurovo/eurovo/download_reports_service?key=s_ra_201703.html )</div><div><br></div><div>Once we agree on grouping I will update the identifiers in correct sequence (e.g. ROR-11,ROR-16..).</div><div><br></div><div>Do you agree on this approach? Any suggestion will be welcomed!</div><div><br></div><div>Kind Regards,</div><div>Costas</div><br><div>-- </div><div>___________________________________________________________________</div><div>Costas Vrioni</div><div>NEUROPUBLIC Information Systems & Technologies S.A. </div><div>email: k_vrioni@neuropublic.gr </div><div>web : http://www.neuropublic.gr </div><div>phone: (+30) 216 200 9882</div><div>phone: (+30) 210 4 10 10 10 ext:3882 </div><div>addr.: 6 Methonis Str, 185 45, Piraeus, Greece</div><div><div style="margin: 5px;"><img src="cid:8465d259-72b5-40cf-b929-5132537a6412.jpg"></div></div><div>___________________________________________________________________</div><br><br><br><div><strong>
From:
</strong>
Markus Demleitner <msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de>
<br>
<strong>
To:
</strong>
<registry@ivoa.net>
<br>
<strong>
Sent:
</strong>
2/20/2017 4:48 PM
<br>
<strong>
Subject:
</strong>
Re: New report feature for EuroVO Registry
<br><br><blockquote class="mori" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px solid #CCC;padding-left:1ex;">Hi,
<br>
<br>On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 03:25:23PM +0200, Kostandin Vrioni wrote:
<br>> I would like to inform you about the new report feature of our
<br>> EuroVO Registry. The "Registry Ecosystem health report" which is a
<br>> public accessible report generated monthly and consist of three
<br>> types of reports:
<br>
<br>Great! I like it.
<br>
<br>Now, on to fix what troubles are left:
<br>
<br>ROR-10, ROR-12, ROR-13, ROR-14, and ROR-15: This is a (single, known,
<br>minor) problem on the side of the RofR -- Yulie, can you perhaps
<br>already make promises on removing the binding of the empty namespaces
<br>in your oai containers?
<br>
<br>NRV-02: I'm not terribly worked up about common prefixes as
<br>Identifiers expliticly says that authorities are opaque. Still, I
<br>admit these do not look like they were registered on purpose.
<br>Theresa, Costas: could you work these out between the two of you?
<br>
<br>HRV-10: Why are missing shortNames flagged as "anomalies"? I admit
<br>that short names are generally useful in displays, but since there
<br>wasn't a consensus to make them mandatory in VOResource, we can't
<br>really point fingers if people leave them out, can we?. Or am I
<br>missing something?
<br>
<br>HRV-11: At least for ivo://org.gavo.dc/rr/q/create I can say that the
<br>OAI interface is missing on purpose (it's our RegTAP endpoint,
<br>and while there is an OAI interface, it doesn't have any records of
<br>its own, which makes the RofR validator really unhappy). These cases
<br>will become more frequent if Registry Interfaces 1.1 becomes REC as
<br>defined now. So, I guess that's no longer an anomaly.
<br>
<br>ROR-HRV-1: There's several cases here. ivo://org.gavo.dc/rr/q/create
<br>is discussed in HRV-11; the RofR probably can't really deal with
<br>these just yet. I guess fixing this could be a criterion for the
<br>implementation of RI 1.1.
<br>The issue with ivo://org.gavo.dc/__system__/services/registry is my
<br>fault. I'll look into it.
<br>
<br>ROR-HRV-2: I don't quite understand where these come from -- Yulie,
<br>could you comment?
<br>
<br>SG-1: I'm surprised to see most of the services in here (chivo-lirae
<br>is a known problem at this point, being worked on). I wonder what
<br>went wrong there since I can't remember when last I found a
<br>whopping six registries down or severely broken. What's the deeper
<br>meaning of _int.esa.esavo.common.PersistentHTTPConnectivityException?
<br>Perhaps there was a local issue?
<br>
<br>
<br>Summing up: Apart from SG-1, this is all fairly benign, and I must
<br>say for a distributed system like the Registry it looks pretty good.
<br>In particular, it's much better than a similar report would have
<br>looked a year ago. And a fairly small fix at the RofR will make it
<br>still look better.
<br>
<br>Thanks to all who helped de-linting the Registry, and thanks to
<br>Costas for making this public.
<br>
<br> -- Markus
<br></blockquote></div></div><BR />
<BR />
<a href="http://www.neuropublic.gr/el/disclaimer"><font size="2"><b>Αποποίηση ευθυνών / Disclaimer</b></font></a><BR />
</body></html>