[MOBY-dev] RFC #1914 - change & call for vote

[Mark Wilkinson]

Hi Martin,

You're right, I should have been more explicit.  There were some last 
minute changes to the RDF model (one predicate removed, one added, and 
one given a range-change) for a Service Instance that were required to 
allow it to be reasoned-over by the myGrid registry.  I detailed what 
those changes were in the previous message.  The changes had no 
"semantic" consequence to us v.v. what we are intending to describe with 
the Service Instance RDF.  This is the RDF that is retrieved by the 
getMetaData call on an LSID representing a service instance, and hence 
these changes affected the relevant RFC.

v.v. your suggested changes, I think I addressed most of them in the 
version of the RFC that I announced; if you recall, I gave you a preview 
of the proposals, and you commented on that preview, so I made those 
modifications before making the public RFC announcement.

v.v. what is returned by a getData call on an LSID?  This is currently 
still an open issue.  The RFC describes (and is titled) how to retrieve 
metadata about MOBY entities.  What is returned by a getData call can be 
addressed in another RFC(s) if anyone can think of a useful behaviour in 
the case of object, namespace, servicetype, and serviceinstance LSID's 
(collectively or respectively).  Since there is no requirement in the 
LSID specification that an LSID *must* resolve with a getData call, we 
are not out-of-compliance with the specification by not addressing this 
right now.  My initial thoughts were that, for Object LSID's, we would 
return the XML Schema of the object, however that turns out to be 
impossible.  I had also thought that we could return the WSDL for a 
service from a getData call on a Service Instance LSID, however you 
rejected that idea as being redundant.  Since that time, I've had no 
other ideas, and no other suggestions have been raised, so... it's an 
open question., but a question that does not prevent us from carrying on 
with this RFC vote.

I will delay the vote until the following Monday (23rd), since I suspect 
that many people didn't spend their Christmas holidays reading the RFC 
documents ;-)  In the meantime, let's have some debate about this, since 
it forms the basis for the long-fabled RDF agent 
registration/deregistration system that is written, but we haven't 
switched on yet because the RDF itself is still in flux.

M





Martin Senger wrote:

> Mark,
>    I am sorry that I m dumb but your message is completely cryptic, 
> and I have no clue what you are suggesting. Could you be please more 
> verbose? I apologize if i am the only one who do not understand.
>
>> Can we call for a vote on RFC 1913 and 1914 by Monday 16th?
>>
>     I think that the deadline for (any) voting should be set more then 
> five days ahead. I know that your RFCs were posted long time ago, but 
> I have not get any answer from you for my first comments (especially 
> the one about what getData() method should/could return).
>
>    With regards,
>    Martin
>