VOSpace home page

Discussion of the VOSpace 1.1 property registration schema

This is a discussion page for the XML schema for registering properties, views and protocols.

The aim is to define extensions or modifications to the IVOA standard registration schema that will enable us to register and describe VOSpace properties, views and protocols.

• IVOA standard registration schema

• Existing schema (possibly out of date)
• Existing example (possibly out of date)

Version 1.0 of the service specification refers to, but does not specify the XML schema for registering properties, views and protocols.

Although this discussion is associated with version 1.1 of the service specificication, the aim of this discussion is to define a registration schema that can be used by version 1.0 and 1.1 of the service specification.

---

This is somewhere where we can post proposals and to enable interested parties to discuss the changes.

Please add your suggestion to this page and vote on other suggestions

• +1 if you agree
• 0 if you think the proposal is useful but needs more work
• -1 if you disagree with the proposal

If you register a 0 or -1 vote, then please add a link to a page outlining your objections or comments.

---

Update the schema and examples

Can we update the schema and examples to match the latest schema from the registry group.

Votes

name	vote	comment
DaveMorris	+1	proposer

Why multiple properties in a single document

Why are we trying to squeeze multiple standards into a single resource document ?

For simplicity sake, I propose we only have one standard per resource document. If we only have one standard per document, then we don't need to bother with the complexity of an id or key attribute and we don't need to use #fragment identifiers in the URIs.

I know we have discussed this before, but I'd like to see the reasons for this explicitly stated as part of this discussion so that we can see if this makes sense.
As long as the reasons for combining multiple standards into a single resource document outweigh the problems and complexity it causes, then ok.

Votes

name	vote	comment
DaveMorris	+1	proposer

Don't use id attribute

As a general rule, we should avoid using an id attribute. This has caused a lot of problems with other schema.
If register a property with id='owner', then we have to ensure that no other registry document, now or in the future, contains id='owner' anywhere the document.

On the other hand, if we use a different attribute, does this mean we have to redefine the meaning of the # fragment indentifier in a URL or URI (see comment on complexity of registering multiple standards in the same document).

Votes

name	vote	comment
DaveMorris	+1	proposer

Property should have a type

A basic type attribute to indicate what data type the property contains, string, integer, date etc.
For practical reasons, should we adopt the existing type enumeration used in votable ?

Votes

name	vote	comment
DaveMorris	+1	proposer

Property should have a regular expression

A property definition may include a 'regex' element containing a regular expression which constrains the allowed syntax of the property.

Votes

name	vote	comment
DaveMorris	+1	proposer

---