Does this idea make sense...?
The suite of telescope labels could function, and perhaps might more properly function, as resource keys under a common authority, such as
ivo://ads.harvard.edu/sa.cxo#2000
This allows the proposed dataset IDs to map virtually as-is onto the VO registry Identifier, prefixed only by an authority ID which asserts, properly, that an agreement with the journals and data centers defines the range of resource keys. It seems to me that this solves the persistence problem, as the registries (or some other service) can be used to resolve the ID into its associated URL, or service, or whatever. Here I have assumed that the ADS would act as the authority, though other possibilities come to mind, such as having IVOA itself assume this role for such a broad matter. In that case we might have
ivo://ivo.net/sa.cxo#2000
However, given the well-established role of the ADS I think the first form is preferable.
The drawback, perhaps, is that there are now at least two identifiers for a particular data set, such as
ivo://sao.harvard.edu/cxo#2000
and
ivo://ads.harvard.edu/sa.cxo#2000
since both data centers and ADS/astronomy journals will wish to publish their collections in the registry. We will have different identifiers already, though, for mirrors, so this in itself is not a fatal problem. The RM schema includes elements Relationship and RelationshipID that can be used to explicitly capture the "mirror-of" status, as in
Identifier = ivo://sao.harvard.edu/cxo#2000
and another,
Identifier = ivo://ads.harvard.edu/sa.cxo#2000
Relationship = mirror-of
RelationshipID = ivo://sao.harvard.edu/cxo#2000
I don't think it is absolutely necessary to indicate the relationship shown above, but the mechanism is available to us.
Is this is a way to reconcile the needs of the generic VO registry with the needs of the journal article/dataset links?
Bob Received on 2003-09-25Z02:59:44