Will Extension schema need to go through IVOA process?

Many groups are now considering extension schema for the registry, so that specialized metadata can be added. To what extent should IVOA be standardizing these registry extensions? How can we encourage flexibility and innovation, but also ensure future interoperability?

RayPlante comments: I'm not sure I understand this as an issue. As chair of the Registry Working Group, I would answer your questions as follows:

  • To what extent standardizing? The fullest extent. It is in our roadmap that every extension have a prose document that goes through the standardization process. The top two priorities are VODataService and VOStandard as these are critical to other emerging standards. (Would the real question be not to what extent but when?)

  • flexibility versus interoperability: We have produced a documented process (VOResource standard and "Defining Capability Metadata the VOResource Way") for defining an extension of VOResource. The framework explicitly allows consumers to ignore extensions that they do not know/care about, and widely supported XML technologies support this functionality. There has been some concerns raised about the practicalities of this statement.

If you disagree with these statements, feel they are understated, or otherwise feel they don't tell the whole story, please co-sponsor this issue.

Comment by ChristopheArviset
This Topic has not been co-sponsored, and comments have been given by Ray Plante on the question, so it will not go to the 2008 Assessment and Roadmap document.

Topic revision: r3 - 2008-06-23 - ChristopheArviset
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platformCopyright © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback