Hi Florido, On 25/03/14 12:00, Florido Paganelli wrote:
After reading all the discussion with Stephen, I am convinced of one thing: [..]
Capability is better; however, the OGSA definitions are (currently) higher-level functionality; they don't (currently) specify which protocol the endpoint supports.
Additional definitions could be added but I'm not sure this is the correct approach.
This is the only correct approach, despite what OGSA definitions are. If Capabilities are open enumerations, we're free to set another route, and create specific ones for protocol. [...] I vote for creating better Capabilities.
Sounds good to me. My I suggest we have a standard way of mapping an OGF and RFC specification to a Capability? This could be a URL or a URN. That way, publishing the correct Capabilities becomes straight-forward and no further registration is needed. Cheers, Paul.