Folks, if I may offer an opinion:
I think that the focus in this discussion (and the corresponding responses to people asking "why is VO any different from GS/WWT?") is misplaced. It reminds me of the people way back asking "isn't VO just like NED?".
The VO is about much, much more than the kind of functionalities offered by the GS and WWT, even if they do manage to find some serious professional uses. For sure, they will be fantastic EPO mechanisms. VO is an environment for -science- first of all, and there is a vast amount of research for which the GS/WWT visualization capabilities are simply irrelevant. We'll try to use them for science, but this one little colorful hammer does not fit all the nails, screws, bolts, wheels, ratchets,....
Generally, I find that any attempt to summarize concisely the concept
of a rich research environment like VO in a single techno buzzword,
like "VO is all about
[middleware,services,grid,...buzzwordofyourchoice....]" falls flat
and tends to be demonstrably false. A cogent, multi-sentence
response reflecting a broad range of the (actual and intended) VO
capabilities would be much better.
Cheers, George Received on 2008-01-14Z17:25:12