On 2008-05 -08, at 10:54, Guy Rixon wrote:
> As you can see, this uses the basic capability from VOResource -
> i.e. no special schema for VOSI - and a pair of standardID values.
> For the VOSI spec, we just need to choose official standardIDs to
> replace the AstroGrid-prototype values. Does anybody see any
> problems with these:
>
> ivo://ivoa.net/std/VOSI#capabilities
> ivo://ivoa.net/std/VOSI#availability
>
> If there is problem with using the fragment identifier to
> distinguish the two kinds of capability in one VOStandard document,
> then the simplest alternative would be
>
> ivo://ivoa.net/std/VOSI/capabilities
> ivo://ivoa.net/std/VOSI/availability
>
> implying two VOStandard documents. (Can anybody from Registry-WG
> comment on this? Paul? Ray?)
>
The latest version of the VOStandard standard (found at http://www.ivoa.net/cgi-bin/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/RegDMStandards) encourages a standard to be registered as a single resource document, so the fragment form for the identifier should be fine AFASIK.
Cheers,
Paul.
The latest version of the standards document
Dr. Paul Harrison
JBCA, Manchester University
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/jodrellbank
Received on 2008-05-08Z12:54:56