Dear all,
Samy Gaiji, from IPGRI, sent us yesterday an email with comments about TAPIR. He consider the response format of the inventory operation inconvenient. For those not remembering an inventory operation looks like this:
Request: ------------ <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> <request> <header /> <inventory count='true' start='0' limit='50' xmlns:dwc='http://digir.net/schema/conceptual/darwin/2003/1.0'> <concepts> <concept path='dwc:/Country' /> <concept path='dwc:/Genus' /> </concepts> </inventory> </request> ---- Response ------------- <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <response> <header></header> <inventory> <record> <value>AUSTRALIA</value> <value>Calicium</Genus> </record> <summary start="0" totalReturned="50" totalMatched="73" next="50" /> </inventory> </response> --------------
He find hards to parse after that all concepts are named 'value' and having to trust on that the elements are returned in the same order as they were request. I don't know, for me this does not look like a big issue, but in any case here is a proposal that makes possible to assign names to the elements that are responded.
Request: ----------------------------------- <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> <request> <header /> <inventory count='true' start='0' limit='50' xmlns:dwc='http://digir.net/schema/conceptual/darwin/2003/1.0'> <concepts> <concept path='dwc:/Country' elementName='Country' /> <concept path='dwc:/Genus' elementName='Genus' /> </concepts> </inventory> </request> ------------------------------- Response: ------------------------------- <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <response> <header></header> <inventory> <record> <Country>AUSTRALIA</Country> <Genus>Calicium</Genus> </record> <summary start="0" totalReturned="50" totalMatched="73" next="50" /> </inventory> </response> ------------------------
You can find attached a modification of the latest protocol schema that includes this.
What are your thoughts on this?
Best regards,
Javier.