Meetings: InterOpMay2010 TAP VOResource Extension SchemaContents2011-06-09 Working draftI've put up what I think should become the next (and maybe even last?) working draft on http://docs.g-vo.org/tre/WD-tapregext-1.0-20110610.html; it's also on the way to Pat. The PDF still has quite a few formatting issues. These will be fixed in ivoapub. This reflects what I (Markus) think was the gist of the feedback in Naples, plus a suggestion on how to generalize the userDefinedFunction element to better match other languages and an indication of geometry support. There's a changelog at the end of the document that gives a quick idea of what changed. The only thing implementors of the last WD must change is the userDefinedFunction that now are languageFeatures; I'd consider adding ivo-ids to languages and/or output formats quite optional. Note that the previous draft suggested some IVORNs containing an authority ivoa.org. This, of course, doesn't exist. If you copied those IVORNs, please correct them to ivoa.net. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | TODO: I boldly claim that ADQL has a registry record ivo://ivoa.org/ADQL/2.0 -- that's not true yet. Will anyone write one? | |||||||
> > | TODO: I boldly claim that ADQL has a registry record ivo://ivoa.net/ADQL/2.0 -- that's not true yet. Will anyone write one? | |||||||
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
<--
|