Why archive packets?

[Rob Seaman]

Howdy,

Well, I see Rick has already forwarded this, but here's another take:

The OC for the upcoming workshop (http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/ 
hotwired) got to talking about what we want to achieve at said  
workshop.  I take this as a good sign.

One notion is to clarify what the protocol (or family of protocols)  
is/are that we've referred to as "SEAP" (Simple Event Access  
Protocol, in blatant analogy to all the other "Simple" VO  
protocols).  Taking the unusual step of focusing on requirements  
before design, we have Alasdair replying to Roy:

>> Let us start by listing the reasons WHY somebody would want to  
>> "query by position, time and concept".
>
> If we agree we want to archive VOEvent messages, then we have to be  
> able to search the archive otherwise there wasn't any point  
> archiving the messages in the first place. Perhaps the place to  
> start is therefore, why are we archiving VOEvent messages in the  
> first place? I'm not arguing we shouldn't, but I think we need to  
> be clear about the reasons.

My own point of view about this is that VOEvent is a publish/ 
subscribe architecture and I take the publish part literally.  Prior  
astronomical message formats, e.g., CBAT and GCN, are often  
referenced in the literature.  Authors will want to do the same with  
VOEvents, certainly when GCN becomes VO-GCN, if not before.  A  
reference requires a persistent publication - or rather,  
"publication" itself implies persistence.

The proceedings for HTU 2007 will themselves be published in AN.  One  
would expect that at least some of the papers might themselves  
reference VOEvent packets.  Or has this milestone already passed?  Is  
anyone aware of a VOE reference in the refereed literature?

Rob