Meetings: InterOpMay2010 TAP VOResource Extension SchemaContentsTowards a Working Draft (2011-01-11)There's a first draft of TAPRegExt up on http://vo.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/docs/TAPRegExt-20110120.html. Please comment. The StandardKeyEnumeration mentioned in the draft text is forthcoming. You can check out the source of the document at http://svn.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/svn/gavo/tapregext/. If you want read/write access to that repository, contact MarkusDemleitner. | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
Issues in the 2011-01-11 Internal Working Draft
| |||||||
Concepts to IncludeThe following concepts should be captured within TAP capabilities (much of it based on grepping the UWS and TAP specs for "may" and "should"):
The Upload Problem and VOSpaceFrom Pat's summary of the Nara discussion: Controlled vocabulary for well know protocols - I would suggest the protocol scheme in lower case as that is common usage, ivo URI for protocols described in the registry - eg vos. For vos URI support, we also need to specify if the service can perform authentication, but that is already specified when a service specifies the endpoint for the associated CDP service which would be required, so in my opinion one can just say they support "vos" (via the URI) and that means unauthenticated; if the service also has a supporting CDP then they can do authenticated (CDP spec says explicitly how to do this - maybe we should at least explicitly refer to the CDP spec section)Things we'd probably not want in the capability
Things deferred at Nara
<--
|