Yep. This looks like good news to me. Well done Markus. I presume this enables more RDF like response structures which is great - though I don't have a time to look at it in detail just at this moment I am afraid.

I am sorry that I am still slow on the mapping of elements in conceptual schemas to concepts in data sources to response structures within Tapir so I will not comment further on how the mapping is done.

Good luck,

Roger

Javier de la Torre wrote:

Hi,

I think this is not only an issue on filters, is also on mappings.
In the mapping section of the outputModel the path attribute of the nodes shouldn't be also qualified? Is there cases that without qualifying we will have problems? Imagine you have in the outputModel something like:

...
<gcp:FullScientificName>Quercus ilex</gcp:FullScientificName>
<abcd:FullScientificName>Quercus ilex L.</abcd:FullScientificName>
...

I know it is maybe not a good example, but I hope is clear.

This reminds me also a message from Roger before Christmas about using RDF with TAPIR.

"Tapir has the intention of combining separate 'concepts' (which implies
different namespaces) into a single output model but do the concepts all
have to be mapped into a single namespace to make the thing workable?"

If I understood the question correctly, the answer is no after import is something supported.

Javier.
_______________________________________________
tdwg-tapir mailing list
tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir_lists.tdwg.org
  

-- 

-------------------------------------
 Roger Hyam
 Technical Architect
 Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
 http://www.tdwg.org
 roger@tdwg.org
 +44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------