> Good progress has been made
I'm not sure I agree. With the greatest of respect to all involved, this
debate is more notable for those not engaged than those who are. If we
continue along this track and time line, we risk ignoring the hard and
detailed work that went into defining the VOResource family of schemata.
We also ignore the investment various VO projects have made in them.
Furthermore, without a context (i.e. Use Cases) within which to frame
the current Info Schema work, how can we be sure it is either complete
or optimal?
It seems logical to me that we elect to use the existing body of approved work to define what content metadata are returned from a TAP V1.0 (note: V1.0) compliant service and move onto the main body of work for TAP V1.0, namely the definition of how we process and manage ADQL queries. The sorts of questions we should be addressing are:
If we focus on these and strive to keep TAP V1.0 as simple as possible, we can get it approved and move onto examining the more challenging (and interesting) problems that lie ahead, especially the definition of the Use Cases we are trying to address with Table Access in general.
Keith.
-- Keith Noddle Phone: +44 (0)116 223 1894 AstroGrid Project manager Fax: +44 (0)116 252 3311 Dept of Physics & Astronomy Mobile: +44 (0)7721 926 461 University of Leicester Email: ktn-at-star.le.ac.uk Leicester, UK LE1 7RH Web: http://www.astrogrid.orgReceived on 2007-10-11Z10:54:58