[MOBY-dev] {Spam?} Re: The Agent behaviour - discussion and questions to the MOBY community

[Martin Senger]

> I definitely agree
> with you that if you don't provide a signature URL, you shouldn't be
> deregistered.  But, if you did provide one, you must maintain it.


Clear! So is this done and agreed on with everybody? Could anybidy put it in
the API documenattion please?




This is where we disagree.  As I said earlier, we have an opportunity to
> enforce robustness in the protocol, and I think we should take it.


Well, I am not saying not to take it. I am only advocating to have both, the
simple ping and the testing ping. And I am implementing now the empty ping
(defined as a request with no mobyData, returning the same back, possibly
with some service notes added). The testing ping will have to wait when I
have more time for implementing (or using) the LSID resolution service (or
at least getting and reading the service RDF document where the input data
could be).

We (GCP) have may services and we are definitely in favor to have them
robust. We think that the empty ping can discover maybe 90% of bad cases, so
it means a vey good ROI. The remainig 10%, we will deal with it using test
data within the MOBY_Enviroment project. For that (the tetsing ping) we do
not need any changes in the MOBY API.

So where is the problem? I see the problem is that most people is not saying
if they agree with the API for the empty ping as suggested by me ad Pieter.
If people say yes, we are done with the empty ping and can concentrate how
to persuade people to have also testing ping.

Martin

-- 
Martin Senger
   email: martin.senger at gmail.com
   skype: martinsenger