RI2Discussion < IVOA

---+ Discussion on Registry Interfaces Version 2

The current draft for a schema letting people query the registry via TAP ("RegTAP") is at http://docs.g-vo.org/ridraft (also [[http://docs.g-vo.org/ridraft/RegTAP.pdf][as PDF]]). The source is maintained in volute, http://volute.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/projects/registry/regtap -- feel free to fix things.

Here's a draft set of (non-vendor-specific) CREATE TABLE statements that define the schema: [[%ATTACHURL%/createtables.sql][createtables.sql]] ([[IVOA.RayPlante][RP]] - 2012-11-16). [Warning: this reflects the draft as it was then; the current draft has some relatively minor) changes -- IVOA.MarkusDemleitner - 2013-03-05]

There is a draft for a replacement of the Registry Interfaces specification at http://volute.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/projects/registry/RegistryInterface; RegTAP used to be part of this, and while it's in development, work on Registry Interface itself is suspended.

There is also a rough draft on representing STC coverage information alongside the more general metadata in http://volute.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/projects/registry/RegTAP-STC. This is suspended since there is a sentiment is that spatial coverage should use MOCs rather than bounding boxes, but we don't quite know yet how to do that.

All this is an attempt to fullfil [[RestfulRegistryInterfaceReq]].

Topics the authors would particularly appreciate community feedback on:

---++ Requests for discussion

Questions discussed at the last interop are on http://docs.g-vo.org/talks/2012-sampa-ri2.pdf

(you're welcome to add your own...)

   * Is it really a good idea to have all role-like things in one table (res_role) rather than have creator, publisher, and contact information in separate tables? 
      * Pro: You save between one and three tables, and it has a nice relational feel
      * Con: It's completely against VOResource; it may be a bit more inconvenient to query
   * Should the tables live in the ivoa schema (like obscore)? Should they have a schema of their own (like right now)? 
      * Should we suggest to reserve _ivo_%_ like schema names for IVOA standardized schemas? 
         * Pro: clean schema identifications, avoid _ivoa_ schema blow-up if all follow ObsCore suggestion
         * Con: proliferation risks (plus I don't like fixed schema names, but it's my opinion -- MarcoMolinaro)
   * Should there be a required table containing VOResource XML fragments? 
      * Pro: many implementations that have an OAI-PMH endpoint will have such a table anyway, and certain classes of clients could use this kind of "all info in one" representation
      * Con: it "muddys the water", and it's a major implementation effort if you don't do OAI-PMH anyway; clients needing VOResource can always get the records using OAI-PMH.
   * Should we highlight the impacts of the RDB solution on VO Resource data model (i.e. required/optional fields may need changes switching from XML to RDB implementation of the DM) 
      * #-tag lists: should be explicitly mentioned in the specification ( _resource.content_level_ can be #-tagged, but what about _creator_seq_?)?

---++ Old discussion items

   * Is this thing just too complex to be implemented by the current workforce-strapped registries? 
      * Are there volunteers/is there an expectation that this will be implemented by more than one group? If not, the considerable effort of standardising it is of questionable value (-- MarkTaylor) .
      * At least EuroVO will hopefully have a completely independent implementation; there are activities to at least mirror the ingested tables from other projects; for further activities, see this page (-- Markus Demleitner) 
         * IA2 (INAF-OATs) is working at a mirror (dumped) of the GAVO relational registry (work in progress -- MarcoMolinaro)

---++ Requests for contributions
   * Could someone mark up not NULL-constraints in the DB schema based on the XML schema?
   * Who'd work with us in creating a validation suite?
<!--
      * Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME = IVOA.TWikiAdminGroup
-->
Attachments
Topic attachments
I	Attachment	History	Action	Size	Date	Who	Comment
sql	createtables.sql	r1	manage	5.1 K	2012-11-16 - 20:22	RayPlante	non-vendor-specific CREATE TABLE statements that implement DM's proposed model
This topic: IVOA > WebHome > IvoaResReg > RegistryInterface > RestfulRegistryInterfaceReq > RelationalRegistryDM > RI2Discussion
Topic revision: r10 - 2013-03-05 - MarkusDemleitner