On May 2, 2006, at 5:10 AM, Paul Harrison wrote:
> Replace this
> ivo://org.astrogrid/vospace#my/pathto/mydata
> with this
> vos://org.astrogrid!vospace/my/pathto/mydata
Paul
If we add new and subtle semantics to the IVORN syntax, then a lot of
documentation will have to be made over the next years explaining
vos:// and ivo:// and why there are two and how they are parsed and
used. Each VO tutorial for the next 5 years will have to include 15
minutes on ivo and vos. Future IVOA meetings will need extra time for
this extra syntax/semantics. People will want their own prefix ("can
I use voe:// for VOEvent?"). So this is a big time commitment and you
need *very* good reasons for this. Your reasons are good, I am not
sure they are good *enough*......
- In each case you need to use the registry to get an endpoint (from
ivo://org.astrogrid/vospace or from vos://org.astrogrid), then you
make a service request to that endpoint to get the data. Is that right?
- If you want to put a DNS address in (so you don't need to query
the registry), then you could use a normal http prefix without the
effort of making new identifier standards:
http://astrogrid.org/vospace/my/pathto/mydata
- You can already assign whatever semantics you wish to the fragment
part. You can have query!path!tablecolumn if you want without need of
building a new identifier syntax.
- I think people already know what these ivorns are supposed to be,
they don't need a special prefix. If I made a query for Conesearches
and got some ivorns back, then I know what they should be because
that come from that query. Hey how about a cos:// prefix for cone
searches so I can recognize them?
Roy
California Institute of Technology
626 395 3670
Received on 2006-05-02Z17:31:34