On 06.11.2006, at 08:06, Ray Plante wrote:
> Hi John et al.
>
> I don't know if this has been pointed out to you or not; however,
> the Plastic Specification is using IVOA identifiers in a non-
> standard way to identify its messages.
>
> The IVOA Identifiers specification
> (http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/IDs.html) states that the use
> of the ivo indicates that the identifier has been registered with
> an IVOA registry (section 3.2.2).
>
> To be compliant, each of the Plastic message identifiers would have
> to be registered as a separate resource. While in principle this
> is possible, this is highly discouraged. Instead, I would
> recommend the approach that is to be used by the VOSpace standard
> in which names are identified using a # suffix; e.g.,
>
> ivo://votech.org/plastic#info/getIVORN
>
> For use of an identifier of this form to be compliant, only the
> ivo://votech.org/plastic resource need be registered. We have a
> new schema we are putting forward for this purpose called
> VOStandard (http://www.ivoa.net/internal/IVOA/RegUpgradeSummer2006/
> VOStandard-v0.1.xsd).
> It defines two new Resource sub-classes, Standard and StandardService,
> that registers the existance of a standard; the former is probably
> most appropriate for Plastic. These types do not currently provide
> metadata for defining what I might call properties (e.g. info/
> getIVORN); however, we should probably add that. Note that the
> standard being described need not be an IVOA standard.
I could easily move the types that exist in the VOSpace schema for these "properties" into the VOStandard schema, so that they become more "generic" - in fact I am about to do some schema work on VOSpace so it would be an opportune moment to make the change.
Cheers,
Paul.
Paul Harrison
ESO Garching
www.eso.org
Received on 2006-11-06Z10:39:27