Core vs Extensions in data services
benjamin.gufler at in.tum.de
Tue Nov 14 23:39:03 PST 2006
On 2006-11-14 13:57, Kona Andrews wrote:
> We have no objection to services providing flexible subsets of ADQL;
Neither have I.
> it's just that we don't believe the *language definition* is the right
> place to put a distinction/set of distinctions that apply to *services*.
I agree on that too.
> The IVOA is currently developing a capability mechanism to describe
> what services can do, and I think capabilities are the right place to
> describe modular subsets of ADQL that services might support.
And I also agree on that.
What I was proposing in my mail yesterday is just a modular design of
the language (in the description as well as in the BNF), with names for
the modules. That way, each service would be able to choose the language
modules sustained necessary, without having to specify a restricted
version of the language's BNF (which would lead to inconsistencies if
the BNF of the language itself changes).
So, it's not defining "core" and "extension(s)" within the language, but
* a more comfortable way of restricting the language for the services
* and probably a more consistent image of the language.
Dipl.-Inf. Benjamin Gufler Lehrstuhl Informatik III
Tel. +49 89 289-17276 Fax +49 89 289-17263
Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748 Garching Raum FMI 02.11.035
More information about the voql-teg