Hi,
recent work with CEA and AstroGrid DSA (proto-TAP) reveals a need to define a CEA application inside the CeaCapability of the service providing it. E.g., instead of registering
ivo://whatever/MyCoolApp
ivo://whatever/MyAppServer
as separate registry entries, one would register
ivo://whatever/MyAppServer
ivo://whatever/MyAppServer#MyCoolApp
The latter form says, specifically, that MyCoolApp is only available via ivo://whatever/MyAppServer and nowhere else; the app does not have a formal identity. The old way of registering apps separately would be used instead to define a standard, mirrored app.
Why would we do this? Because it's _easier_ to inline the local, unique apps. It's easier for the service provider, for the registry and for the client consuming the registrations. It makes the service definition self-contained and it fits well with VOSI and pull-registration. We trade a little more complexity in the schema for a lot less complexity in installation and operation.
This proposal applies only to schemata based on VOResource 1.0. I don't want to change the old oners based on VOResource 0.10.
Cheers,
Guy
Guy Rixon gtr-at-ast.cam.ac.uk Institute of Astronomy Tel: +44-1223-337542 Madingley Road, Cambridge, UK, CB3 0HA Fax: +44-1223-337523Received on 2007-10-08Z15:38:42