Hi,
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, John Taylor wrote:
> It's certainly an alternative worth considering, though I see two problems:
> 1) we're already using the #fragment for something else
You can do what ever you like after the # following the IVOA id, including having another pound.
If it helps, ? has the exact same effect from the IVOA ID perspective--it marks the end of the identifier that is resolvable via the registry. You could then have messages that look like
ivo://votech.org/plastic?info/getIVORN#...
2) it centralises the
> definition of messages in one place - we want to avoid this. So far all the
> messages have been defined "with the votech.org authId" (bad bad choice), but
> I'd really like to see ivo://estar.org/voevent/do/something/funky appear at
> some point. Now we'd be crazy to let Alasdair get his hands on our
> publishing registry...so how would he add his message to the master list?
So by avoiding centralization, I take you mean that you want to allow anyone to define a new message. My recommendation is that that through one Standard resource record, one can define a set of properties (that are presumably related). You define your core Plastic message; Alasdair, in a sepearate Standard record, defines his extended set. Applications can either describe support for whole sets or individual properties.
I think it can work.
cheers,
Ray
Received on 2006-11-17Z18:42:13