Hi Ray,
I've had another crack at the registry structure using what I think is a similar approach to yours:
http://wiki.astrogrid.org/pub/Main/TonyOnRegistryStructure/tlRegistry05.xsd
http://wiki.astrogrid.org/pub/Main/TonyOnRegistryStructure/tlRegistry05.gif
I can see the benefits of using the complexType structure. It does mean you can create new schemas (as with the SIA one) wholly from the basic types. That said, I think the approach of using basic elements as in tlRegistry03.xsd where the SkyService is simply an optional subtype of the Service element also has its attractions.
On the whole, though, yours is certainly simpler to maintain and easier to add whole new classes of resource; it also means the user simply chooses up front which type/class of resource is being added and then fills in the elements.
Is this version closer to what you think we should end up with as a structure for the Registry metadata schema?
Cheers,
Tony.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registry-at-eso.org [mailto:owner-registry-at-eso.org]
> On Behalf Of Ray Plante
> Sent: 16 June 2003 07:30
> To: registry-at-ivoa.net
> Subject: RE: AstroGrid registry structure
> ...
Received on 2003-06-20Z00:05:57
