Hi Alberto M.,
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Alberto Micol wrote:
> In one sentence I would simply answer that the instrument names
> do not add anything to the identifiers, hence they should not be used.
> Instrument names are part of the metadata associated with
> the data nothing to do with the identifier.
>From the perspective of the IVOA ID WD, what appears within the
authorityID portion of the ID is up to the owner of the authorityID
(apart from character constraints); it merely defines a namespace. The WD
recommends a DNS-like name as a way of avoiding collisions. The ADEC
proposal suggested names based on instrument for the same reason (I
believe). Systems will not interpret the name semantically; any suggested
semantics is only as a pnuemonic for humans.
> Altogether, I would prefer, as Arnold suggests, a simpler,
> less miss-interpretable, less arbitrary, hence not subject to the taste
> of people, two-key design (plus the scheme), something like:
>
> ivoa://NASA.ESA/HST#U3814G02T
This is largely consistant with the current IVOA ID WD (http://www.ivoa.net/internal/IVOA/IVOARegWp03/WD-ID-20030830.html).
cheers,
Ray
Received on 2003-09-17Z19:58:55