Thanks, Clive!
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Clive Page wrote:
> > 2. Should RSM (Resource and Service Metadata) be renamed to RM (Resource
> > Metadata)?
>
> As I tried to suggest earlier today, we appear have agreed to set up
> everything in future as a Web Service (or even a Grid Service) so the
> Registry should be just a registry of services - many of which will give
> access to resources, so RSM should stand for Registry of Service Metadata.
> Is that an acceptable compromise?
This is not quite correct. I think we have agreed to move toward Web/Grid Services when it comes to standard services. However, what the RSM suggests is that there are many things that we want to register that are not strictly services. These include things that in managerial sense exist "above" services, including organizations, projects/missions, and data collections that are accessible by many or no services. There are other abstract things we may wish to register so that they can be referenced by more concrete things; these include standards or, say, commonly cited coverages. (Furthermore, we want to register legacy services which are not Web Service based.) RSM says that they are all resources and share some common description.
cheers,
Ray
Received on 2003-06-17Z18:35:53