Rob Seaman wrote:
> My comment is that adopting a complicated solution (as the only
> option) to a recurring fundamental problem will drive users away from
> the VO. Many discussions in the VO pit computer scientists against
> astronomers. This one appears to be pitting computer scientists
> against each other.
>
> The bottom line is that the VOEvent community is rather feisty and is
> driven not only by VO concerns but also by requirements external to
> the VO. This could be taken as a description of most users that the
> VO is likely to attract in the future. Fundamental VO standards like
> STC should be kept as simple and interoperable as practical if growing
> the VO community is a goal.
I'll make the prediction that event driven science will be one of the main drivers for adoption of VO technologies outside the core VO fraternity. But to have event driven science you have to convince the people with the big glass that it's worth their while to use the VO standards rather than roll their own. If the VO standards are too complicated, and the effort in adopting them even modestly more than rolling their own, then they won't do it.
People running big projects don't generally much care about interoperability and adopt standards where it makes their life easier, rather than harder. If there are no major publishers, then there won't be any users, and therefore there won't be any event driven science, and a much slower adoption of VO technologies by the astronomical community.
Al. Received on 2005-12-14Z18:23:57