Dear all
Please find attached some feedback from Aurelien Stebe about Doug's
inputs on TAP.
Cheers
Inaki
attached mail follows:
Hi Pedro,
Here are a few thoughts after reading Doug's TAP inputs. First, there are a few use-cases that I hadn't thought of, and I think there is room for two protocol specifications to cover those use-cases. The "Simple Queries" part describes a TAP sensibly identical to the way I described it, but the "Multiple Catalogs" part is more a description of a <Simple Table Access Protocol>, with a direct transition from "Image" (from SIAP) or "Spectrum" (from SSAP) to "Table" in this protocol.
To make it clearer, I'll define a few words here, the way I understand
them at least (which might be wrong, then I'd like to be corrected),
because we really need to speak the same language.
- Dataset : a complete entity containing astronomical information of
some sort. This is an Image (in FITS, JPG, PNG, VOTable, ...) for SIAP,
a Spectrum (in FITS, CSV, VOTable, ...) for SSAP or even a Table (in
FITS, CSV, VOTable, ....) for Doug's "Multiple Catalogs" part of the
use-cases.
- Data : some queriable information that is usually (but not always)
saved in a RDBMS. The data for SIAP or SSAP is actually Metadata about
Images or Spectra, that is Dataset Metadata. In the case of TAP the data
can be absolutely anything, but should be astronomical information about
sources.
- Dataset Metadata : for SIAP or SSAP, this is the data. See above.
Hence, as I see it, Datasets are accessed using the "getData", whereas Data is queried using the "queryData" operation, the Protocol Metadata is retrieved using the "getCapabilities", or that's what I thought, but it seems it returns Service Metadata (or both ?). The TAP only needs the "getData" and "getCapabilities".
Cheers,
Aurelien
Received on 2007-04-20Z16:31:40