I wasn't suggesting any changes to the overall workshop agenda, I suspect
it is too late to change at this point. At the moment DAL-2 looks best for
the SkyNode discussion as we also have a conflict with W&G services which
overlaps more with SkyNode than registry. Lets leave it open for further
comments and then put out a revised DAL agenda early next week. Doug
On Fri, 14 May 2004, Tony Linde wrote:
> I'd certainly prefer DAL-1 for the SkyNode session - I couldn't duck out of
> Regsitry!
>
> If you do shuffle sessions, can we leave VOQL1, DAL1, DM1 as they're nicely
> set up not conflicting with any of the Registry sessions and I'd like a
> chance to get to one each of them.
>
> Cheers,
> Tony.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Doug Tody [mailto:dtody-at-nrao.edu]
> > Sent: 14 May 2004 16:34
> > To: Wil O'Mullane
> > Cc: Tony Linde; masatoshi.ohishi-at-nao.ac.jp; architecture-at-ivoa.net
> > Subject: Re: Proposed agenda for DAL session at the May
> > Interop meeting (fwd)
> >
> > I had in mind DAL-2 but I see it is in parallel with
> > registry-1 which probably isn't too good either. We can
> > adjust the agenda to do it either
> > way. Let me know what you prefer. Doug
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 14 May 2004, Wil O'Mullane wrote:
> >
> > > ok but DAL-1 is paralelle with GWS ..
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:00:23AM -0600, Doug Tody wrote:
> > > > It seems to me that the bulk of the technical discussion
> > should be in the
> > > > VOQL sessions since this is where the development has
> > been up to this point
> > > > and since ADQL and SkyNode are closely linked. This will
> > provide enough
> > > > time to look in detail at experience with trial
> > implementations and the
> > > > details of ADQL. We should then have a session in the
> > DAL WG to discuss
> > > > SkyNode from the DAL perspective and start to take a look
> > at the issues
> > > > of merging ADQL capabilities into DAL services. Probably
> > this will then
> > > > become a major focus of DAL for the next year. VOQL
> > precedes DAL in the
> > > > agenda so this should work out well. Does that sound
> > reasonable? Doug
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 14 May 2004, Tony Linde wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Looks like the best approach for now.
> > > >
> > > > > Maybe we could make the first session of the VOQL group
> > at Boston a focus on
> > > > > SkyNode with a view to nailing down this spec and
> > invite the DAL group to
> > > > > join us to help ensure common features have common
> > expression so that a
> > > > > future merging of the specs is easier??
> > > > >
> > > > > Tony.
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Wil O'Mullane [mailto:womullan-at-skysrv.pha.jhu.edu]
> > > > > > Sent: 14 May 2004 14:21
> > > > > > To: Tony Linde
> > > > > > Cc: 'Doug Tody'; architecture-at-ivoa.net
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Proposed agenda for DAL session at the May
> > > > > > Interop meeting (fwd)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > SkyNode specifies the methods and parameters that
> > any data access
> > > > > > > service must provide. One of the input parameters to the
> > > > > > query method
> > > > > > > is the query itself and ADQL is the format that
> > that query is in.
> > > > > > This is exactly how we dicussed skynode when I was asked to
> > > > > > break it in a seperate document from ADQL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps we should continue then to develop this spec
> > under VOQL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Received on 2004-05-14Z16:45:03