Re: Rwp02 - Some ideas on defining scope and Key Science Cases

Yap, I agree: the best thing to do is to adopt the definitions given in

http://www.ivoa.net/internal/IVOA/Registry19032003/ResourceServiceMetadataV6.pdf

I quite like the definitions of "service", "resource", and "query service"; instead, the "non-query service: concept should be clarified, actually I would prefer dropping it completely, because any service, even a service that sends emails or deletes files:

• it is queried (in the sense of invoked)
• it must produce a response since it has to notify whether the operation succeeded or not, or if it the request has been queued, etc.

In this sense, I think there should be no non-query services.

The only exception regarding the non-Bob's document terminology might be the definition of the registry itself. For two reasons:

1. The feeling is that such definition is too generic, and anyway it is the role of this working group to revisit it and redefine it.
2. There is one contraddiction with what was agreed at the kickoff meeting: The definition of a "registry" speaks of services and not of resources. I like it better this way though (a resource is in my view too broad and non-functional concept to be useful, unless by resource we mean another registry), but if we go for this terminology, then we have to rivisit the decision taken at the meeting.

btw, is this what you meant by saying that this is contraddicting Tony's minutes ?

Alberto Received on 2003-03-27Z16:27:23