Registry Interface Proposed Recommendation: Request for Comments

This document will act as RFC center for the Proposed Recommendation entitled "IVOA Registry Interfaces, version 1.01". The specification can be found at http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/cover/RegistryInterface-20080929.html (PDF, DOC).

Review period: 30 September 2008 to 29 November 2008*
    *extended from original end date.

Note on ADQL Reference:
The reference for ADQL in the Registry Interfaces document is incorrect. The actual URL should be http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/WD/ADQL/ADQL-20050624.pdf.

In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment.

Additional discussion about any of the comments or responses can be conducted on the Resource Registry mailing list, registry@ivoa.net. However, please be sure to enter your initial comments here for full consideration in any future revisions of this document.

Comments from the Community

NoelWinstanley 7 Oct 2008

• The Search operation requires the query to be in ADQL/x format. However, recent versions of the ADQL specification (including the PR) makes no mention of ADQL/x, only the ADQL/s form. The reference given by the Registry Interface document for ADQL/x is to a 2004 working draft, which must have been superceded by the ADQL PR (the URL is broken, BTW).
  • Is it sensible to base the main querying interface to registry on a 'dead' language?
  • Or is KeywordSearch the function that's recommended to be actually used in practice?
  • Should the Search function be marked as deprecated / liable to change ?
  • Should the Search function be marked as optional, and support described in the registry, as for XQuerySearch?
  • Should the 'Search' function be altered to accept adql/s instead?

• • response from RayPlante (chair):

Is it sensible to base the main querying interface to registry on a 'dead' language?

This is a good question that I would like to hear more comments on and which the TCG should specifically take up. While not ideal, our rational is that as this specification contains a number of other components that are critical to registry interoperability, we thought it important not to slow the document by trying to upgrade the ADQL part (which has an impact on implementations). It was intended that RI be tied specifically to ADQL v1.0 so as not to be confused with the later ADQL revamp; however, I see that the body of the text is not explicit and the reference is incorrect; only the WSDL is correct. Making the ADQL interface optional like XQuerySearch may be a reasonable alternative.

Additional Note: As suggested and endorsed at the October Interop, we will inline the relevent bits of ADQL v1.01 into the RI spec. This may not get added in until after the RFC; see the ADQL spec until then.

---

Comments by TCG

Chairs should add their comments under their name.

Data Curation and Preservation (BobHanisch)

I defer to the registry specialists on this one. The document certainly looks complete and well thought out.

The document is correctly labeled as Proposed Recommendation, but the text in the paragraph Status of the Document still says Working Draft.

Under Conformance-Related Definitions, "shall" is defined as part of the restricted vocabulary, but it is not actually used in the document. I suggest removing "shall" from this list. The IETF RFC 2119 equates "shall" with "must" in any case, so we might as well use just the one term.