I generally endorse Tony's comments. I think we need to aim at defining
a minimum standard.
(1) I strongly agree that we must keep the VO an enabling infrastructure
rather than an actual structure. Getting the right approach to the
Registry is a key step in getting the philosophy right. We shouldn't be
over prescriptive. It should be possible to have multiple Registries.
Registries should not require a supervising authority. A Registry should
be a service somebody can offer competitively, just like offering data
search services etc.
(2) On the other hand, we want as much as possible of the software we
develop in the various VO projects to be inter-operable.
(3) Each VO project should be free to use its own choice of
implementation technology, consistent with the interoperability
principle, and also free to make design choices, such as whether their
registry is fine grained or coarse grained. (At this stage we probably
want to positively encourage a diversity of choices, for technical
experimentation.)
The conclusion is that the IVOA forum should aim at answering the question "what is the MINIMUM set of agreed standards that we should agree on" ? I think some of the US-VO resource data document is relevant to this aim, and some goes beyond it. Likewise in AstroGrid we are starting to make some specific technology choices that we should not necessarily force on others.
I am aware that all the above is rather vague and woofly. I will try to think through what it means in more concrete terms. As soon as I get through andoher eight classes and another six committees.
andy
Andy Lawrence e-mail al-at-roe.ac.uk Edinburgh Institute for Astronomy Direct (UK)-(0)131-668-8346 University of Edinburgh ROE switch (UK)-(0)131-668-8100 Royal Observatory Edinburgh Liz Gibson (UK)-(0)131-668-8356 Blackford Hill (Admin Asst) Edinburgh EH9 3HJ Fax (UK)-(0)131-668-8416 ====================================================================Received on 2003-02-03Z14:07:31