[Esip-discovery] open search extensions

Hua, Hook (388C) hook.hua at jpl.nasa.gov
Sat Jan 29 01:52:08 EST 2011

Hi Chris,

XSD is simpler with more predefined data types and support of Simple and Complex types.

RDFS is more semantically future-looking, and can also use xsd types.

The question is how simple or complex do we want the spec to be?


From: "Lynnes, Christopher S. (GSFC-6102)" <christopher.s.lynnes at nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:17:08 -0800
To: Hook Hua <hook.hua at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: jeff mcwhirter <jeffmc at unavco.org>, <esip-discovery at lists.esipfed.org>
Subject: Re: [Esip-discovery] open search extensions

On Jan 27, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Hua, Hook (388C) wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
> Going back to Chris' rant ("challenge to the community") back in 2008, the original idea was to create simpler services such that more people would actually use it.
> I see adhering to the "official" OpenSearch and ESIP Federated OpenSearch specifications is a good way to foster interoperability. Though we know that this may require sacrificing the full potential that these services could provide.

However, I like the idea of making the namespace documents dereferencible descriptions of the query/response parameters.  The only question is what form to use to properly type them:  XSD? or maybe RDFS?  Or GSAC?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-discovery/attachments/20110128/5f8c1b11/attachment.html>

More information about the Esip-discovery mailing list