This document will act as
RFC centre for the
SODA http://www.ivoa.net/documents/SODA/index.html .
Review period:
12th October to 24th November 2016
In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your
WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment.
Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the
DAL WG mailing list, dal@ivoa.net . However, please be sure to enter your initial comments here for full consideration in any future revisions of this document.
Implementations
Links and description of existing interoperable implementations
++
SODA sync service
resourceIdentifier : ivo://cadc.nrc.ca/soda#sync
standardID : ivo://ivoa.net/std/SODA#sync-1.0
accessURL :
http://www.cadc-ccda.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/caom2ops/sync
++
SODA async
resourceIdentifier : ivo://cadc.nrc.ca/soda#async
standardID ivo://ivoa.net/std/SODA#async-1.0
accessURL
http://www.cadc-ccda.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/caom2ops/async"
- GAVO SODA half client and ... server
see :
http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dal/2016-March/007414.html
- CASDA home page. Restricted access
https://casda.csiro.au/casda_data_access/
https://github.com/csiro-rds/sodalint
Comments from the Community
- Sample comment (by BrunoRino): ...
- Response (by authorname): ...
Comments from Pierre Fernique
1) This document is clearly technical and requires the knowledge of several other IVOA documents. The section 4 is a great help to understand the associated relations. But the addition of a dedicated schema showing the
SODA interactions with the other IVOA protocols directly connected to
SODA (TAP, SIAv2, DATALINK) just after the general usual global IVOA protocol schema could help a little bit more.
2)
Document factoring suggestions:- The usage of very small subsections (page 6 and follows) describing usecases could be refactored in a list of items and sub-items.
- The multiple repetition of bibliographic reference should be avoid (ex: page 12)
3)
Coherence:- Some utype uses domain prefix (obscore:) and some others forget de domain prefix (exemple page 15 3.2.7)
- The font for Obscore label is not always homogeneized (ex: 4.3 "content-type", "access_format", "access_url").
4)
Missing definition:- The three-Factor semantic should be described a little bit more. It is difficult to see the relation with the way to express the parameter (page 15)
- The "resourceIdentifier" parameter is not described in the document => "If the service is registered, the provider can include a resourceIdentifier parameter" (page 18)
7)
Questions/suggestions:- It appears quite strange to express a MAX value for structured objects (CIRCLE, POLYGON, ...) thanks to the VOTable VALUES element. What MAX mean in such case ? I suppose that the idea is to provide the limit of the query region. In the text, it is said that it should be taken as a suggested values. I am a quite uncomfortable with this VOTable usage.
- May be, emphasis the fact that the HTTP error code must be properly set (4xx or 5xx)
- Page 22, it is said: "
For example, if an {async} job included two CIRCLE and two BAND values, there must be four results" => is it really reasonnable to let open this possibility difficult to understand/manage both for the client and the server ? I see this sentence more as an illustration of the lack of boolean contraints on multiple parameters. I would suggest to adopt the AND implicite rule rather to provide all the possible combinations
8 )
Typos:p5 - "SODA servces" => "i" missing
p5 - 1.1.2 "descibed" => described
p13 - "of ther data" -> remove "r"
p13 - "SODA Filtering" => F should be in lowercase
p15 - 3.2.7 => simple quote => double quote (utype 'obscore...)
p16 ""Wthin" => "Within"
p16 ""servces" => "services"
page 17 "descrbes" => "describes"
page 18 - "obs_puclishder_did" => "obs_publisher_did"
page 18 - "obs_publishder_did" -> "obs_publisher_did"
page 19 "data-" => "data"
page 22 "nomative" => "normative"
page 22 - "re-organised" => "R" uppercase
page 22 - "patameters" => "parameters"
--
PierreFernique - 2016-10-20
Comments from TCG members during the TCG Review Period: 2016-10-12 to 2016-11-24
WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any and formally indicate if they approve or do not approve of the Standard.
IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, although their inputs are not compulsory.
TCG Chair & Vice Chair ( _Matthew Graham, Pat Dowler )
Applications Working Group ( _Pierre Fernique, Tom Donaldson )
Data Access Layer Working Group ( François Bonnarel, Marco Molinaro )
Data Model Working Group ( _Mark Cresitello-Dittmar, Laurent Michel )
Grid & Web Services Working Group ( Brian Major, Giuliano Taffoni )
Registry Working Group ( _Markus Demleitner, Theresa Dower )
Though this may be odd coming from Registry, and though I'm usually
totally in favour of standards regulating their Registry aspects, in
this particular case my feeling is that the standard has very little
relationship to the Registry, and it would benefit from removing most of
the references to it. This would mean:
(1) p.5, "First, a
SODA service could be found in the IVOA Registry and
used directly." -- since it is impossible to know a dataset identifier
(or the parameters supported by a
SODA service) in this scenario, and
even if (e.g., from an examples document) you had that it's hard to
imagine what useful purpose could be served by such a thing, I think
this sentence should be taken out.
(2) p.5, "Since the discovery of
SODA services ... make use of a registry
extension" -- I'd strike that sentence, too. The consequence implied
here is tenuous at best (parameters are actually declared within the
interface, whereas capability metadata will typically cover things that
aren't in the Datalink descriptor), and we don't have to apologise for
not defining a registry extension anyway. This also lets us drop 1.1.1,
together with the "see also" to 4.1, which in turns largely repeats
1.1.1 only adding that it "is not expected to be a common usage
pattern". So, 4.1 could go, too.
Since the sections are not wrong as such, I'm not insisting, but the
document certainly would be shorter and clearer without them.
Actually, I
can see two use cases for having
SODA services registred:
(a) Users might at some point search for "resources with associated
SODA
service"; the scenario here could be that a user has located a service
but wants a
SODA-enabled version of it. How likely that is I can't say.
(b) Infrastructure might look for
SODA services to validate. Together
with an examples page that might even be possible.
In both cases I think the story isn't terribly strong, so I'm not
suggesting even mentioning either in the document.
Having said that, Registry approves.
--
MarkusDemleitner - 2016-11-23
Semantics Working Group ( _Mireille Louys, Alberto Accomazzi )
Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )
Time Domain Interest Group ( _John Swinbank, Dave Morris )
Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Françoise Genova )
Operations Interest Group ( _Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor )
Knowledge Discovery Interest Group ( Kaï Polsterer )
Theory Interest Group ( _Carlos Rodrigo )
Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova)