<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px">
<DIV>I think I agree here.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The harvesting "procedure" is really defined outside the Tapir protocol, is it not? So it is really an agreement between the harvester and the harvestees.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So what is really needed here is the standard procedure for maintaining a "harvestable" dataset and the standard procedure for harvesting that dataset.</DIV>
<DIV>We have a general rule at Landcare, that we never delete records in our datasets - they are either deprecated in favour of another record, and so the resolution of that record would point to the new record, or the are set to a state of "deleted", but are still kept in the dataset, and can be resolved (which would indicate a state of deleted).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Kevin</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>>>> "Renato De Giovanni" <renato@cria.org.br> 6/05/2008 7:33 a.m. >>><BR>Hi Markus,<BR><BR>I would suggest creating new concepts for incremental harvesting, <BR>either in the data standards themselves or in some new extension. In <BR>the case of TAPIR, GBIF could easily check the mapped concepts before <BR>deciding between incremental or full harvesting.<BR><BR>Actually it could be just one new concept such as "recordStatus" or <BR>"deletionFlag". Or perhaps you could also want to create your own <BR>definition for dateLastModified indicating which set of concepts <BR>should be considered to see if something has changed or not, but I <BR>guess this level of granularity would be difficult to be supported.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR>--<BR>Renato<BR><BR>On 5 May 2008 at 11:24, Markus Döring wrote:<BR><BR>> Phil,<BR>> incremental harvesting is not implemented on the GBIF side as far as I <BR>> am aware. And I dont think that will be a simple thing to implement on <BR>> the current system. Also, even if we can detect only the changed <BR>> records since the last harevesting via dateLastModified we still have <BR>> no information about deletions. We could have an arrangement saying <BR>> that you keep deleted records as empty records with just the ID and <BR>> nothing else (I vaguely remember LSIDs were supposed to work like this <BR>> too). But that also needs to be supported on your side then, never <BR>> entirely removing any record. I will have a discussion with the others <BR>> at GBIF about that.<BR>> <BR>> Markus<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>tdwg-tapir mailing list<BR>tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org<BR><A href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg</A>-tapir<BR></DIV><BR>
<div style="margin-left: 4px; line-height: normal; margin-right: 4px; font-variant: normal; margin-bottom: 1px; margin-top: 4px">
<p>
<img src="cid:DSHJZOEKAYVF.46e1787f.jpg" border="0">
<font face="Book Antiqua" color="#006600" size="4">Please consider the
environment before printing this email </font>
</p>
<p>
<strong><font face="Book Antiqua" size="2">WARNING</font></strong><font face="Book Antiqua" size="2">
: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They
are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used,
copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are
not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email
and delete this message and any attachments.<br><br>The views
expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily
reflect the<br>official views of Landcare Research. </font><a href="http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz"><font face="Book Antiqua" color="#0000ff" size="2"><u>
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz</u></font></a><font face="Book Antiqua" color="#0000ff" size="2">
</font>
</p>
</div>
</BODY></HTML>