Hi Chuck,
The 'stack' I have in my mind (which isn't really a stack but a 'slider' because they don't wrap each other) goes like this:
1. Resolution = Have identifier get object = LSID (and to a lesser extent URL for things we don't care about so much like logos). 2. Harvest = Give me what has changed since... = OAI? ( This is still to be fully investigated but is a half way house to a full blown query language). 3. Query = Ask whatever you like = BioCASe, TAPIR, DiGIR or SPARQL.
We have unified on 1. We don't disagree on 2 but it may not be necessary. We are moving towards unifying 3 by unifying the vocabulary used by all the protocols. Different query protocols will probably always be needed for different purposes but the query terms should map to the same place. RDF will figure large going forward as it is the default return type for LSID and so we need to be able to express all our objects in it. We may also need to express them in other ways such as GML.
Appendix B of the TAG-1 report summarizes the current technology.
http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/pub/TAG/TagMeeting1Report/TAG-1_Report_Final.pdf
Hope this helps,
Roger
Chuck Miller wrote:
Sounds to me that we have a multi-layer communications protocol stack in development here, but we aren't spelling out the layers very well. Discussing LSID in the context of biodiversity systems/databases without a clear definition of the necessary underlying layers is confusing me.
Can someone do a more expanded elucidation of the complete LSID/RDF protocol stack? What exactly are we proposing to standardize on besides just the syntax of an LSID.
Chuck
From: Roger Hyam [mailto:roger@tdwg.org] Sent: Mon 6/19/2006 9:37 AM To: David Remsen Cc: tdwg-guid@mailman.nhm.ku.edu Subject: Re: [Tdwg-guid] Throttling searches
Yes it would be violating the LSID ethos to use the version number as a different version number means a different LSID - also what would happen if the LSID already had a version number? Really this stuff is not to do with the LSID 'layer' at all - it is the web services the LSIDs resolve to. There may be all sorts of authentication and authorization wrapped round the web services and we don't want to go trying to leaver that into the GUID technology - in my opinion.
Roger
David Remsen wrote:
We do some of this already with our web services. SOAP methods required a keycode. We use the code so we have a contact in case we need to send a message out as well as to provide a better accounting to sources of how we pass on their content. Patrick (uBio programmer and nice guy) asked why not use the LSID version number as a way to pass a token. If it's not passed you can fall back to one level of processing else give it the extra special treatment with the userID. Or is this violating something sacred in the LSID ethos?
David Remsen
On Jun 19, 2006, at 6:07 AM, Roger Hyam wrote:
You don't! The LSID resolves to the binding to the getMetadata() method - which is a plain old fashioned URL. At this point the LSID authority has done its duty and we are just on a plain HTTP GET call so you can do whatever you can do with any regular HTTP GET. You could stipulate another header field or (more simply) give priority service for those who append a valid user id to the URL (&user_id=12345)So there is no throttle on resolving the LSID to the getMetadata binding (which is cheap) but there is a throttle on the actual call to get the metadata method. Really you need to do this because bad people may be able to tell from the URL how to scrape the source and bypass the LSID resolver after the first call anyhow. This is especially true if the URL contains the IPNI record ID which is likely. Here is an example using Rod's tester. http://linnaeus.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/lsid/tester/?q=urn:lsid:ubio.org:na... http://linnaeus.zoology.gla.ac.uk/%7Erpage/lsid/tester/?q=urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:11815 The getMetadata() method for this LSID: urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:11815 Is bound to this URL: http://names.ubio.org/authority/metadata.php?lsid=urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank... So ubio would just have to give preferential services to calls like this: http://names.ubio.org/authority/metadata.php?lsid=urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank... If rogerhyam had paid his membership fees this year. Does this make sense? Roger p.s. You could do this on the web pages as well with a clever little thing to write dynamic tokens into the links so that it doesn't degrade the regular browsing experience and only stops scrapers - but that is beyond my remit at the moment ;) p.p.s. You could wrap this in https if you were paranoid about people stealing tokens - but this is highly unlikely I believe. Sally Hinchcliffe wrote:
How can we pass a token with an LSID? I think the only way to throttle in these situations is to have some notion of who the client is and the only way to do that is to have some kind of token exchange over HTTP saying who they are. Basically you have to have some kind of client registration system or you can never distinguish between a call from a new client and a repeat call. The use of IP address is a pain because so many people are now behind some kind of NAT gateway. How about this for a plan: You could give a degraded services to people who don't pass a token (a 5 second delay perhaps) and offer a quicker service to registered users who pass a token (but then perhaps limit the number of calls they make). This would mean you could offer a universal service even to those with naive client software but a better service to those who play nicely. You could also get better stats on who is using the service. So there are ways that this could be done. I expect people will come up with a host of different ways. It is outside LSIDs though. Roger Sally Hinchcliffe wrote: It's not an LSID issue per se, but LSIDs will make it harder to slow searches down. For instance, Google restricts use of its spell checker to 1000 a day by use of a key which is passed in with each request. Obviously this can't be done with LSIDs as then they wouldn't be the same for each user. The other reason why it's relevant to LSIDs is simply that providing a list of all relevant IPNI LSIDs (not necessary to the LSID implementation but a nice to have for caching / lookups for other systems using our LSIDs) also makes life easier for the datascrapers to operate Also I thought ... here's a list full of clever people perhaps they will have some suggestions Sally 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 addressed at the meeting. Thanks for that. I would say that we should not constrain the resolution of LSIDs if we 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 will likely vary quite a lot, depending on underlying system optimizations and all. So I think that the solution for this problem is in caching LSID responses 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, but maybe 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 -- ------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group ------------------------------------- http://www.tdwg.org <http://www.tdwg.org/> roger@tdwg.org +44 1578 722782 ------------------------------------- *** Sally Hinchcliffe *** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew *** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708 *** S.Hinchcliffe@rbgkew.org.uk -- ------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group ------------------------------------- http://www.tdwg.org <http://www.tdwg.org/> roger@tdwg.org +44 1578 722782 ------------------------------------- *** Sally Hinchcliffe *** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew *** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708 *** S.Hinchcliffe@rbgkew.org.uk --------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group ------------------------------------- http://www.tdwg.org http://www.tdwg.org/ roger@tdwg.org +44 1578 722782 ------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ TDWG-GUID mailing list TDWG-GUID@mailman.nhm.ku.edu http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-guid
David Remsen
uBio Project Manager
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA 02543
508-289-7632
TDWG-GUID mailing list TDWG-GUID@mailman.nhm.ku.edu http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-guid