International Virtual Observatory Alliance

Difference: VOSpace10Spec (7 vs. 8)

Revision 82006-06-16 - DaveMorris

META TOPICPARENT	name="IvoaGridAndWebServices"

Discussion of the VOSpace 1.0 specification Document

This is a discussion page for the VOSpace-1.0 service specification document.

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

For each version there is a Change request section - please add to this and vote on other suggestions

+1 if you agree
-1 if you disagree
0 if you have no particular preference

Version 0.21

vospace-0.21.doc

This document was produced as a result of the discussions that occured at the Victoria Interop meeting.

Change Requests

Mandate and define at least one transport protocol

without this a compliant VOSpace will not be able to transfer data to another compliant VOSpace.

I recommend http be mandatory.

-- PaulHarrison

Which version, http-1.0 or http-1.1 ?
Which methods http-get, http-put or both ?
- For a space that stores public images, then http-1.1-get makes sense.
- For a space that allows upload to sensitive database tables, then http-1.x-put does not have sufficient authentication.

-- DaveMorris - 16 Jun 2006

Votes

name	vote	comment
PaulHarrison	+1
DaveMorris	-1

Specify as optional a small list of well known transport protocols

so that at least implementations will do the same thing for common protocols - this list to include

ftp
gridftp

-- PaulHarrison

Agree with the list of common protocols.

Defined in a annex to the main specification, including a standard URI and details of the protocol specification (can be just short note and a reference to the external specification).

e.g.

HTTP 1.1 get
URI
    ivo://....vospace/protocols/http-1.1-get
Description :
    Get data using the HTTP-1.1 GET method as defined in RFC2616.
    http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html#sec9.3

-- DaveMorris - 16 Jun 2006

Votes

name	vote	comment
PaulHarrison	+1
DaveMorris	+1

Specify the key names and meanings for a small group of "essential" property keys

The minimum set which I would say we need mandatory names are

vos.Owner
vos.ModificationDate
vos.Size
vos.MimeType

-- PaulHarrison

Agree with the list of common properties.

Defined in a annex to the main specification, including a standard URI and details of what each property means and how it is represented.

e.g.

Data created date
KEY
    vos.data.created.date
Description :
    A read-only property generated by the server.
    Indicating when the data contents were originally created.
    Formatted as a ISO 8601 date-time [yyyy-mm-ddTHH:MM:SS.SSS]
----

Deleted:

<
<

Data modified date KEY vos.data.modified.date Description : A read-only property generated by the server. Indicating when the data contents were last modified. Formatted as a ISO 8601 date-time [yyyy-mm-ddTHH:MM:SS.SSS]

Note - As VOSpace-1.0 does not support append, the only way the created and modified dates will be different is if the server modifies the data underneath.

-- DaveMorris - 16 Jun 2006

Votes

name	vote	comment
PaulHarrison	+1
DaveMorris	+1

Clarify the use of the Format parameter in some calls

I believe that the original intention of Format was to specify a possible transformation of the data (mainly on export of table data from RDBMS based stores). In the current version of the document it reads as if this parameter is merely a description of the data - in which case mime-type suffices. In addition I am not sure if this parameter has any meaning for import operations.

Votes

name	vote	comment
PaulHarrison	+1

Change "exception" to "fault"

The document uses the term exception for the "faults" rather than "fault" -- PaulHarrison

Votes

name	vote	comment
PaulHarrison	+1
DaveMorris	-1	I can't see a significant benefit from changing this

Consider adding an optional identifier list to the parameters for ListNodes

This would allow the client to specifly a subset of the VOSpace to be listed - in effect the behaviour would be similar to the "ls" command in unix. -- PaulHarrison

Votes

name	vote	comment
PaulHarrison	+1
DaveMorris	-1	I can't see a significant benefit from changing this

Reconsider getNodeProperties and setNodeProperties

the naming of these operations makes them appear as a pair, where in fact they are not - you get a Node out of the getNodeProperties and have to put a PropertyPairList into the setNodeProperties - If the change to ListNodes were made as above, then getNodeProperties would be redundant anyway. -- PaulHarrison

Votes

name	vote	comment
PaulHarrison	+1
DaveMorris	-1	I can't see a significant benefit from changing this

Semantics not clear for setNodeProperties

It is not clear

how to delete a property - does a null value of the property pair denote this?
does the whole set of node properties given as an argument replace the whole set for the node, or is a union operation performed.
interaction with the "read-only" properties in these scenarios...

-- PaulHarrison

Agree, need to make this clearer.

Null value deletes property.
Operation is union not replace.
Server throws PermissionDenined for read-only properties.

-- DaveMorris - 16 Jun 2006

Votes

name	vote	comment
PaulHarrison	+1
DaveMorris	+1

Change names of parameters for moveNode and copyNode

Target is a confusing name for the "source" part of a move operation it sounds more like "destination" - recommend use "source" and "destination" -- PaulHarrison

Yep, source and destination are probably better. As long as we make it clear that these are internal locations, not references to external locations.

-- DaveMorris - 16 Jun 2006

Votes

name	vote	comment
PaulHarrison	+1
DaveMorris	+1

<-- 
 
 
 Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME = TWikiAdminGroup
 
 
-->

View topic | History: r35 < r34 < r33 < r32 | More topic actions...