Meetings: InterOpMay2006ResReg :: InterOpSep2006ResReg Summary of Registry Issues Discussed at the May 2007 InterOpDuring the Registry sessions, we took a census of the assembly regarding a number of proposals. This page summarizes the proposals and reports the consensus of the group in attendence. Since a number of active working group members couldn't be at the meeting, we want to give folks an additional opportunity to offer comments and register their preferences before we take any decisions as final. Please review these items and add any comments you have, preferably by 8 June.Index of IssuesMinor RI standard issues1. VOResource root element in harvesting Identify response
2. Should record requirements apply to deleted records
3. Require the use of =xsi:schemaLocation in harvesting interface
4. Require use of namespace prefixes in
|
Meetings: InterOpMay2006ResReg :: InterOpSep2006ResReg Summary of Registry Issues Discussed at the May 2007 InterOpDuring the Registry sessions, we took a census of the assembly regarding a number of proposals. This page summarizes the proposals and reports the consensus of the group in attendence. Since a number of active working group members couldn't be at the meeting, we want to give folks an additional opportunity to offer comments and register their preferences before we take any decisions as final. Please review these items and add any comments you have, preferably by 8 June.Index of IssuesMinor RI standard issues1. VOResource root element in harvesting Identify response
2. Should record requirements apply to deleted records
3. Require the use of =xsi:schemaLocation in harvesting interface
4. Require use of namespace prefixes in
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Originally did not have much of a problem with the Proposal, but thinking a little more one small problem here in Astrogrid is we have released upgraded a few registries already and the XML must validate to schema to be allowed into the registry, if a user comes in and writes XML to the 'new' namespace schema whereby placing a few of those optional elements it will reject his entry because it is invalid (the registry knows about the 'old' schema). I suspect I will need to upgrade these registries anyways for a few minor fixes in OAI so maybe it is not a huge issue, but I think it is more wise to do the Alternate proposal and use a different namespace since this 1.0 schema is already public. Also note I am thinking this might break one of your rules you mentioned on Nov 21 'Version Numbers on XMLSchemata' see this url: http://www.ivoa.net/forum/registry/0611/1760.htm KevinBenson | |||||||
Addressing the Graininess IssueAfter much discussion of the issue, we gravitated toward some concensus on some underlying points:
9. Develop VOSI 1.1 to get more metadata from service
10. VODataService: pointing to table metadata
<--
|
Meetings: InterOpMay2006ResReg :: InterOpSep2006ResReg Summary of Registry Issues Discussed at the May 2007 InterOpDuring the Registry sessions, we took a census of the assembly regarding a number of proposals. This page summarizes the proposals and reports the consensus of the group in attendence. Since a number of active working group members couldn't be at the meeting, we want to give folks an additional opportunity to offer comments and register their preferences before we take any decisions as final. Please review these items and add any comments you have, preferably by 8 June.Index of IssuesMinor RI standard issues1. VOResource root element in harvesting Identify response
2. Should record requirements apply to deleted records
3. Require the use of =xsi:schemaLocation in harvesting interface
4. Require use of namespace prefixes in
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Although xsi:type is of xml type QName (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#xsi_type) the xslt 1.0 and xpath 1.0 specifications only allowed for a data model where attributes have string values - the version 2.0 xslt and xpath seem to have a more sophisticated data model (http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/#AttributeNode) that allows for a "typed-value", so perhaps the problem will 'go away' for specifying xqueries for more modern tools, as it should be possible to specify the namespace in the attribute value in the same sort of way as for element names. (Though I note that Saxon, for instance, only fullly supports the "schema related" parts of xslt 2.0 in the commercial version). So in practical terms this problem remains even for client writers of xquery, and certainly anyway for writers of adql queries. I think that this should be a requirement (or dropped entirely) as if the namespace prefix remains only a recommendation then client writers still have to write queries that will accomodate attribute values with or without prefixes to be able to query the registries that are not following the recommendation. Additionally there would have to be a way for the registry to declare that is was following the recommendation before the client could know that it was able to use the simplified form of the query. -- PaulHarrison - 29 May 2007 | |||||||
5. Location of namespace declarations
Missing AgreementsI noticed that we neglected to integrate several agreements from the Victoria meeting into our standards, so we will need to do this.6. Searchability of core VOResource metadata
7. Returning full VOResource records
8. VODataService: additional metadata to be added
Addressing the Graininess IssueAfter much discussion of the issue, we gravitated toward some concensus on some underlying points:
9. Develop VOSI 1.1 to get more metadata from service
10. VODataService: pointing to table metadata
<--
|
Meetings: InterOpMay2006ResReg :: InterOpSep2006ResReg Summary of Registry Issues Discussed at the May 2007 InterOp | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | During the Registry sessions, we took a census of the assembly regarding a number of proposals. This page summarizes the proposals and reports the consensus of the group in attendence. Since a number of active working group meetings couldn't be at the meeting, we want to give folks an additional opportunity to offer comments and register their preferences before we take any decisions as final. | |||||||
> > | During the Registry sessions, we took a census of the assembly regarding a number of proposals. This page summarizes the proposals and reports the consensus of the group in attendence. Since a number of active working group members couldn't be at the meeting, we want to give folks an additional opportunity to offer comments and register their preferences before we take any decisions as final. | |||||||
Please review these items and add any comments you have, preferably by 8 June. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Note: Page under construction | |||||||
> > | Index of Issues | |||||||
Minor RI standard issues1. VOResource root element in harvesting Identify response
2. Should record requirements apply to deleted records
3. Require the use of =xsi:schemaLocation in harvesting interface | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
4. Require use of namespace prefixes in | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
5. Location of namespace declarations | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Missing AgreementsI noticed that we neglected to integrate several agreements from the Victoria meeting into our standards, so we will need to do this.6. Searchability of core VOResource metadata
7. Returning full VOResource records | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 8. VODataService: additional metadata to be added | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | under construction | |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | add your comments here | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Addressing the Graininess Issue | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | After much discussion of the issue, we gravitated toward some concensus on some underlying points:
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | In a related development, the VO Support Interfaces (VOSI) specification was altered to replace getRegistration()/getMetadata() with a getCapabilities() method that only returns a capability element. A major motivation is the rational that it would easier for a publisher to use a registry's publishing interface to create the core VOResource metadata. The metadata that are easiest to serve from the service itself are the ones that could be autogenerated from the implementation itself. | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 9. Develop VOSI 1.1 to get more metadata from service | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | add your comments here | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 10. VODataService: pointing to table metadata
| |||||||
<--
|
Meetings: InterOpMay2006ResReg :: InterOpSep2006ResReg Summary of Registry Issues Discussed at the May 2007 InterOpDuring the Registry sessions, we took a census of the assembly regarding a number of proposals. This page summarizes the proposals and reports the consensus of the group in attendence. Since a number of active working group meetings couldn't be at the meeting, we want to give folks an additional opportunity to offer comments and register their preferences before we take any decisions as final. Please review these items and add any comments you have, preferably by 8 June. Note: Page under construction | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | RI and VOResource standards issues | |||||||
> > | Minor RI standard issues | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | 1. RI: VOResource root element in harvesting Identify response | |||||||
> > | 1. VOResource root element in harvesting Identify response | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | 2. RI: Should record requirements apply to deleted records | |||||||
> > | 2. Should record requirements apply to deleted records | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | 3. RI: Require the use of =xsi:schemaLocation in harvesting interface | |||||||
> > | 3. Require the use of =xsi:schemaLocation in harvesting interface | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | 4. RI: Require use of namespace prefixes in | |||||||
> > | 4. Require use of namespace prefixes in | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | 5. RI: Location of namespace declarations | |||||||
> > | 5. Location of namespace declarations | |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
Missing AgreementsI noticed that we neglected to integrate several agreements from the Victoria meeting into our standards, so we will need to do this.6. Searchability of core VOResource metadata
7. Returning full VOResource records
| |||||||
<--
|
Meetings: InterOpMay2006ResReg :: InterOpSep2006ResReg Summary of Registry Issues Discussed at the May 2007 InterOpDuring the Registry sessions, we took a census of the assembly regarding a number of proposals. This page summarizes the proposals and reports the consensus of the group in attendence. Since a number of active working group meetings couldn't be at the meeting, we want to give folks an additional opportunity to offer comments and register their preferences before we take any decisions as final. Please review these items and add any comments you have, preferably by 8 June. Note: Page under constructionRI and VOResource standards issues1. RI: VOResource root element in harvesting Identify response
2. RI: Should record requirements apply to deleted records
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
3. RI: Require the use of =xsi:schemaLocation in harvesting interface
4. RI: Require use of namespace prefixes in
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | 4. RI: Location of namespace declarations | |||||||
> > | 5. RI: Location of namespace declarations | |||||||
<--
|
Meetings: InterOpMay2006ResReg :: InterOpSep2006ResReg Summary of Registry Issues Discussed at the May 2007 InterOpDuring the Registry sessions, we took a census of the assembly regarding a number of proposals. This page summarizes the proposals and reports the consensus of the group in attendence. Since a number of active working group meetings couldn't be at the meeting, we want to give folks an additional opportunity to offer comments and register their preferences before we take any decisions as final. Please review these items and add any comments you have, preferably by 8 June. Note: Page under constructionRI and VOResource standards issues1. RI: VOResource root element in harvesting Identify response
2. RI: Should record requirements apply to deleted records
3. RI: Require the use of =xsi:schemaLocation in harvesting interface
4. RI: Require use of namespace prefixes in
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
4. RI: Location of namespace declarations
| |||||||
under construction
<--
|
Meetings: InterOpMay2006ResReg :: InterOpSep2006ResReg Summary of Registry Issues Discussed at the May 2007 InterOpDuring the Registry sessions, we took a census of the assembly regarding a number of proposals. This page summarizes the proposals and reports the consensus of the group in attendence. Since a number of active working group meetings couldn't be at the meeting, we want to give folks an additional opportunity to offer comments and register their preferences before we take any decisions as final. Please review these items and add any comments you have, preferably by 8 June. Note: Page under constructionRI and VOResource standards issues1. RI: VOResource root element in harvesting Identify response
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
2. RI: Should record requirements apply to deleted records | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
3. RI: Require the use of =xsi:schemaLocation in harvesting interface
4. RI: Require use of namespace prefixes in
| |||||||
under construction
<--
|
Meetings: InterOpMay2006ResReg :: InterOpSep2006ResReg Summary of Registry Issues Discussed at the May 2007 InterOpDuring the Registry sessions, we took a census of the assembly regarding a number of proposals. This page summarizes the proposals and reports the consensus of the group in attendence. Since a number of active working group meetings couldn't be at the meeting, we want to give folks an additional opportunity to offer comments and register their preferences before we take any decisions as final. Please review these items and add any comments you have, preferably by 8 June. Note: Page under constructionRI and VOResource standards issues1. RI: VOResource root element in harvesting Identify response
2. RI: Should record requirements apply to deleted records
<--
|