SimpleDALRegExt 1.2 WD

[ada nebot]

Hi Markus, 

I was wondering, would this also be the place for describing services providing timeseries ? 
Since there are a number of services distributing those it would be great to be able to discover them as such… 

What would we need to add / change for that? 

Thoughts? 

Thanks,
Ada

PS: let’s continue this discussion under the TDIG 

--
Astronome Adjointe
CDS, Observatoire Astronomique de Strasbourg (ObAS)
UMR 7550 Universite de Strasbourg 
11, rue de l'Universite, F-67000 Strasbourg
+33 (0) 3 68 85 24 20

> On 14 Feb 2020, at 18:21, Markus Demleitner <msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
> 
> Dear Registry Community,
> 
> With quite a bit of delay I've now uploaded to the document
> repository the new version of SimpleDALRegExt promised in Groningen,
> and I'd be grateful for any feedback --
> 
> http://ivoa.net/documents/SimpleDALRegExt/20200212/
> 
> The reason for this update, really, is that the TCG wanted the #aux
> standard identifiers for the S*APs that are mentioned in the endorsed
> note on discovering data collections where implementors would
> actually notice them.  They are now in section 4.
> 
> While I was touching the document, I found two other spots of
> trouble:
> 
> * there was a SpaceFrame type used for the definition of SSAP
>  services.  Since that listed a load of frames that we will
>  (probably) no longer have in STC2, and we want to migrate the list
>  of frames to a vocabulary anyway, I've removed the type and
>  replaced it with a pointer to the vocabulary
>  http://ivoa.net/rdf/refframe/ instead.  Nothing will become
>  schema-broken by this move, but if validators start validating
>  against the vocabulary, legacy records might become invalid.  In
>  reality, that won't happen because no registred services use any of
>  the dropped frames, so I'd plead we're on the good side of standard
>  evolution with this move.
> 
> * SimpleDALRegExt 1.0, of 10 years ago, had a ProtoSpectralAccess
>  type that was deprecated immediately in the REC.  Back in last
>  autumn, the last publishers still publishing records that used the
>  time pulled them from the Registry, and so, again, I'd say we're
>  fine to just drop this type, even though it would invalidate
>  records -- it's just that such records don't exist any more.
> 
> So... Opinions?  Ideas for other cleanup we should be doing while
> we're at it?
> 
> Unless there's discussion, I'd ask the chairs to push this to PR rather
> soon (as in mid-March), as the changes, really, are trivial in
> practice.  The core is a consequence of things the TCG has already
> endorsed (DDC), and the rest is pure cleanup and simplification.
> 
>         -- Markus

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/voevent/attachments/20200218/50ca5535/attachment.html>