I'd like "endpoint" a lot more than "resource"

[msdemlei]

DALI talks about the various places that clients can go to as "resources", as in "VOSI-capabilities defines a simple web resource that returns an XML document".

I give you this is absolutely in line with what the various RFCs do, where a resource is basically anything that has a URI. But in the VO, we'd be doing our deployers a favour if we called resource what has an ivoid (i.e., a data collection, or a full service, or an authority, etc.).

The DALI "resources" are what VOResource calls a capability, and capabilities are parts of resources. Calling these things resources must be confusing to people trying to untangle what's going on.

We could speak of "capabilities" here, too, but for one that sounds rather bellicose to me, and then things like sync and async shouldn't be different capabilities in the first place. Hence, I'd suggest to change the wording to "endpoint".

Objections? Invitations to PR?

[pdowler]

I also prefer endpoint when we are talking about an access URL (base or otherwise). I think "resource" comes from W3C style, but it is generally a pretty vague term in this context. Over in the group-formerly-known-as GWS the term endpoint is used and it does tend to be more clear.
+1

[pdowler]

I'm just trying to finalise WD-DALI-1.2 but this seems like a good improvement to include now if you can do it.

[pdowler]

fixed in #64

[gmantele]

I come late in this discussion, just to say that I like very much 'endpoint' rather than 'resource'....as you said this latter is more vague and can be confusing with registry aware people.