Difference: InterOpMay2006Architecture (2 vs. 3)
Revision 32006-05-14 - GuyRixon
Roy, Of course I don't entirely accept your description of DM... I think that with our experience developing the spectrum DM and the SSA DAL, we now have software implementations and we have what Doug calls 'component data models' that are small bits which can be reused in different contexts. The Curation, DataID, and soon Characterization/Coverage models are pieces that are relatively simple and can be reused elsewhere. The Spectral Line model, which is rapidly heading to 1.0, is a nice example of a DM which is relatively simple and on which we have achieved convergence quickly. So I think we have learned how to do it. - Jonathan | ||||||||
| Added: | ||||||||
| > > | From your description of the GWS work-packages: VOStore should be carefully defined so that data store can be indirect, not controlled by VOStore, yet the metadata still well synchronoized with the data store.If we replace "VOStore" with "VOSpace" (since VOStore being dropped), then I agree with you in general. I think that where we have two interfaces to a data-store, e.g. VOSpace and SkyNode talking to the same RDBMS, then the ensemble is responsible for keeping coherence, and we should write that into the spec. If you had some other requirement or use case in mind then maybe you could explain in more detail; perhaps a note to the Friday GWS session? GuyRixon | |||||||
<--
| ||||||||
View topic | History: r8 < r7 < r6 < r5 | More topic actions...
Copyright © 2008-2025 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback