Is this an LSID issue? LSIDs essential provide a binding service between an name and one or more web services (we default to HTTP GET bindings). It isn't really up to the LSID authority to administer any policies regarding the web service but simply to point at it. It is up to the web service to do things like throttling, authentication and authorization.
Imagine, for example, that the different services had different policies. It may be reasonable not to restrict the getMetadata() calls but to restrict the getData() calls.
The use of LSIDs does not create any new problems that weren't there with web page scraping - or scraping of any other web service.
Just my thoughts...
Roger
Ricardo Scachetti Pereira wrote:
Sally, You raised a really important issue that we had not really addressedat the meeting. Thanks for that.
I would say that we should not constrain the resolution of LSIDs ifwe expect our LSID infrastructure to work. LSIDs will be the basis of our architecture so we better have good support for that.
However, that is sure a limiting factor. Also server efficiency willlikely vary quite a lot, depending on underlying system optimizations and all.
So I think that the solution for this problem is in caching LSIDresponses on the server LSID stack. Basically, after resolving an LSID once, your server should be able to resolve it again and again really quickly, until something on the metadata that is related to that id changes.
I haven't looked at this aspect of the LSID software stack, butmaybe others can say something about it. In any case I'll do some research on it and get back to you.
Again, thanks for bringing it up. Cheers,Ricardo
Sally Hinchcliffe wrote:
There are enough discontinuities in IPNI ids that 1,2,3 would quickly run into the sand. I agree it's not a new problem - I just hate to think I'm making life easier for the data scrapers Sally
It can be a problem but I'm not sure if there is a simple solution ... and how different is the LSID crawler scenario from an http://www.ipni.org/ipni/plantsearch?id= 1,2,3,4,5 ... 9999999 scenario?
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-guid-bounces@mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:tdwg-guid-bounces@mailman.nhm.ku.edu]On Behalf Of Sally Hinchcliffe Sent: 15 June 2006 12:08 To: tdwg-guid@mailman.nhm.ku.edu Subject: [Tdwg-guid] Throttling searches [ Scanned for viruses ]
Hi all another question that has come up here.
As discussed at the meeting, we're thinking of providing a complete download of all IPNI LSIDs plus a label (name and author, probably) which will be available as an annually produced download
Most people will play nice and just resolve one or two LSIDs as required, but by providing a complete list, we're making it very easy for someone to write a crawler that hits every LSID in turn and basically brings our server to its knees
Anybody know of a good way of enforcing more polite behaviour? We can make the download only available under a data supply agreement that includes a clause limiting hit rates, or we could limit by IP address (but this would ultimately block out services like Rod's simple resolver). I beleive Google's spell checker uses a key which has to be passed in as part of the query - obviously we can't do that with LSIDs
Any thoughts? Anyone think this is a problem?
Sally *** Sally Hinchcliffe *** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew *** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708 *** S.Hinchcliffe@rbgkew.org.uk
TDWG-GUID mailing list TDWG-GUID@mailman.nhm.ku.edu http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-guid
TDWG-GUID mailing list TDWG-GUID@mailman.nhm.ku.edu http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-guid
*** Sally Hinchcliffe *** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew *** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708 *** S.Hinchcliffe@rbgkew.org.uk
TDWG-GUID mailing list TDWG-GUID@mailman.nhm.ku.edu http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-guid
TDWG-GUID mailing list TDWG-GUID@mailman.nhm.ku.edu http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-guid