[tdwg-tapir] Updates and plans
Renato De Giovanni
renato at cria.org.br
Mon Oct 13 15:04:41 CEST 2008
If the provider only has a dump file and is not planning to offer any
TAPIR operation in the future, I certainly agree there's nothing much to
do with TAPIR. However, we all know that data harvesters may benefit if
real TAPIR providers do offer some sort of dump file to help in the
initial load. In this case, isn't it better to know from the capabilities
response that the provider has a dump file in a certain format available
in a certain place? If we don't include this information as part of a
capabilities response, how would you know about it? I'm sure you'll prefer
not to receive this additional information by e-mail from each provider...
Regarding TAPIRLite, the example you gave will only be technically correct
if the service is also able to respond the 3 (currently) mandatory
operations (metadata, capabilities and ping) and if the query template is
defined according to the TAPIR spec.
> Hi Renato, Markus, Kevin et al
> Should a dump file really have anything to do with TAPIR? I would have
> expected to see it external to TAPIR spec - not to say that the wrapper
> software can't be a TAPIR wrapper plus a 'dump file' wrapper at the same
> Similarly with TAPIRLite - maybe I don't get it right, or perhaps it was
> the early adopters, but one can be a TAPIRLite provider while only
> answering one search URL pointing at a custom query template with say a
> couple of GET params passed in, only support a custom response schema, yet
> claim TAPIR compliance - is this technically correct?
> What say you guys?
> Looking forward to discussing with you all.
> Cheers from Singapore Airport,
More information about the tdwg-tag