[tdwg-tapir] TapirLite and SimpleFiltering pages
Renato De Giovanni
renato at cria.org.br
Fri Oct 21 20:23:02 CEST 2005
Some quick comments about the three topics:
1- Filter parameters:
I do remember we have discussed about that before, but somehow I had
the impression that we didn't come to any concrete conclusion (and if
we did, I think that's something we left out of the integration
document, so, I'm sorry if I forgot about this detail...). Anyway, I
definitely agree that it would be better if we could have it
formalized as an attribute.
2- Include directives
Not sure if there'll be significant benefits here, but if someone
could give an interesting example of such functionality, maybe we can
I already included a comment in the wiki. I really think that's a
On 21 Oct 2005 at 19:40, Döring, Markus wrote:
> Hi Roger & Renato,
> I somehow wasn't subscribed to the list properly, so I nearly repeated
> all of Renatos comments on the wiki without being aware of this mail
> I think we said earlier that all parameters in views should be
> optional by nature - this is also how the pywrapper implements it.
> Does it make sense for any view to have mandatory parameters in
> filters? If a parameter is not being used in the actual view call,
> then this part of the filter should be ignored. Otherwise it would
> evaluate to false and therefore no AND combinations of parameters
> would be possible. But if we have a view exposing only one parameter,
> lets say the objectID, and this one is not given - that also doesnt
> make too much sense. So this could be a case where a parameter is
> required. >From the formal aspect I support Renatos idea of having
> another flag "optional" or "required" to indicate this. We could also
> use an attribute "use='required'" as in attribute definitions in xml
> schema. By default I think all parameters should be optional.
> Most of the changes are included now in the current schema proposal,
> but views are still a separate category in capabilities. I dont mind
> to change this the way renato showed below.
> One other issue to discuss is importing/including directives in views
> and schemas. Would it be of great value to have includes in views?
> If so, would we need include directives on the base of the protocol:
> <include href="dwc_base.xml">
> or should we define xml processing instructions like this:
> <?include href="dwc_base.xml" ?>
> If we want to be able to do includes at any place in a document, I
> think we have to go for PIs. Just something to think about if you are
> But my main concern is still the IndexingElementExplosion:
> I hope to have some new ideas about the explosion in my next mail.
More information about the tdwg-tag