[tdwg-tapir] TapirLite

Donald Hobern dhobern at gbif.org
Tue Nov 22 09:36:57 CET 2005

When I wrote this, I thought you did not support scan with TAPIRLite, but I
included it because I would need at least to be able to fake some aspects of
scan using search views.

As for your idea, this seems fine to me.  Making things modular is always

Donald Hobern (dhobern at gbif.org)
Programme Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability 
Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat 
Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
Tel: +45-35321483   Mobile: +45-28751483   Fax: +45-35321480

-----Original Message-----
From: "Döring, Markus" [mailto:m.doering at BGBM.org] 
Sent: 22 November 2005 09:33
To: Donald Hobern; rgales at ku.edu; Renato De Giovanni
Cc: tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
Subject: AW: [tdwg-tapir] TapirLite

reading Donalds message I had yet another idea.
Donald was saying we are having parameterised inventories, but thats not
true. We can only use the filter parameter with scans, but no predefined
filters (similar to query templates). But it would be great and straight
forward to have them.

So I was thinking why didnt we keep filters and output models entirely
separate from each other? Why not request a specific output model in a
search and also request a certain filter-parameter template? This could then
be reused for inventories where we dont need any output model.

It would probably also look better in capabilities, if the output model is
listed separately for searches (see robs portal example) and the query
templates (maybe better filter templates?) are a distinct section in
capabilities that can be used in inventories ans searches?

It currently sounds like a good idea to me !

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
[mailto:tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] Im Auftrag von Donald Hobern
Gesendet: Montag, 21. November 2005 23:43
An: rgales at ku.edu; 'Renato De Giovanni'
Cc: tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
Betreff: Re: [tdwg-tapir] TapirLite

I'm afraid that I have been way too busy to keep up over the last few days,
but I'd like to add my input one more time on TAPIRLite and TAPIR.

I really see these as part of a continuum.  There are two points on this
continuum to which we have given names:

TAPIRLite = ping + metadata + capabilities + a set of predefined
parameterised scan or search (view) operations which have been defined
somewhere using standard TAPIR scan and search definitions

TAPIR = all of the above plus free-format scan and search operations and
ability to handle any properly formed TAPIR request

I can see really good uses for both of these with the TDWG standards and in
the GBIF network, and quite frankly I will be in serious trouble if one of
the two is not supported.  I have a preference for keeping the name TAPIR
somehow attached to both so that we emphasise what is common in our

However I am not convinced that it is worth our while taking time to exclude
any functional subset from what we will regard as "TAPIR".  It will always
be possible to define sets of capabilities which include search and scan
behaviour but which are functionally useless (essential elements not being
searchable, etc.).  I suggest that we leave it to different communities
(i.e. different TDWG content subgroups) to develop application profiles for
the use of TAPIR with their data.  For example, there should be a TDWG
standard defining which elements should be searchable within a DwC data set,
and perhaps documenting the minimal acceptable set of views which all
specimen data sets MUST be able to support if they are to be accepted as
TAPIRLite specimen or taxon concept providers.  There could be contexts in
which a community decides to make use of TAPIR solely with scan requests for
some purpose, or solely with search requests.  Why should we try to prevent

Thanks for working so hard on all this.

Donald Hobern (dhobern at gbif.org)
Programme Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability Global
Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100
Copenhagen, Denmark
Tel: +45-35321483   Mobile: +45-28751483   Fax: +45-35321480

-----Original Message-----
From: tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
[mailto:tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Robert Gales
Sent: 21 November 2005 23:25
To: Renato De Giovanni
Cc: tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
Subject: Re: [tdwg-tapir] TapirLite

Hi Renato,

My comments inline...

Renato De Giovanni wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> It seems we agree on everything, I just have some quick comments...
>>Further, say a
>>portal wants to integrate specimen and taxon concept data, but the 
>>specimens implement TAPIR and all TCS providers are TAPIRLite.  Once 
>>again, the developers must write an entirely custom portal.
> This could become even more difficult if the TAPIR protocol leaves no 
> room for TapirLite implementations. Then the TCS networks would 
> probably be based on a completely different protocol, and the 
> integration would be more complicated.
> ...

I'm definitely not arguing of making TAPIR so there is no room for
TAPIRLite, but that anything that is not TAPIRLite must at minimum support
both search and operations so there is at least a baseline of useful
functionality (ping, metadata and capabilities aside) that all clients can
take advantage of without requiring a large body of code just to handle the
logic of understanding the capabilities and running the risk that there is
no interoperability as Marcus has shown concern about.  If I missed a
similar argument on this list my apologies, I only recall discussions about
what filter operations should/should not be required but nothing about TAPIR

>>Assuming the above was present in the TAPIR protocol and a mixed 
>>network of TAPIR/TAPIR Lite implementations, the generic portal's 
>>basic logic might look something like the following:
>>If Provider x is TAPIRLite:
>>   Find all query templates that match my output model
>>   As user constructs query, remove those query templates that could
>>   not possibly be used (missing concept, etc.)
>>   /* Likely more logic here if > 1 query templates are left
>>    * possibly with user interaction */
>>Else If Provider x is TAPIR:
>>   Ensure x supports my output model
>>   Can assume that search is available
>>   Can assume that operations (exception maybe "in") are supported
>>   /* If client is ambitious, may try to use any query templates
>>   defined
>>    * within search capabilities (would be same alg. as TAPIRLite),
>>    but * is optional */
> That's an interesting exercise. In this scenario, it seems that the 
> portal is configured to work with one specific output model (could be 
> more than one if we want to complicate things, the user could choose 
> one of them and the portal could know how to make transformations or 
> to dynamically filter providers).

It would certainly complicate things depending on the output models. 
There are a couple of scenarios I see here.  Scenario 1)  Portals that
support multiple models but of the same data object (ex. both DwC and
ABCD) and 2)  Portals that support multiple models of conceptually different
data objects (ex. DwC and TCS).

In the first case, I see there are potentially three ways to handle such a
situation.  1)  The portal is customizable by having a plug-in architecture
that can handle transformations between two different schemas via XSLT/code.
2)  The providers must support both output models.  3)  The experimental
custom output model mode is used on those providers that support it.

There are benefits and drawbacks to all.  In option 1)  the portals
architecture and configuration is a bit more complicated, but because the
transformation can be accomplished by XSLT or code or a combination it can
take into account semantic transformations.  In option 2)  there is a risk
that there might be relevant data that cannot be accessed because a provider
does not support the output models the portal desires, but this would be
safest route.  In option 3)  potentially might run into some of the problems
discussed in Madrid.

In the second case where the portal is integrating different types of
information, the portal really has multiple sets of providers that are able
to be queried depending on the output models and concepts those providers
have available.  In the example there is the pool of providers that serve
specimen data and the pool that serve taxonomic data.  One (probably naive)
way this could be handled is that the portal is configured with some sort of
mapping that says something like (in English because I haven't really sat
down to sketch this out in pseudocode):

If User queries dwc:/ScientificName, also query providers with an output
model of TCS using tcs:/DataSet/TaxonName/Simple

Anything that is unmapped would result in queries only being transmitted to
those providers that support the output model from which the concept in the
filter originated.  So dwc:/YearCollected would only query those providers
in the pool supporting an output model of DwC and
tcs:/DataSet/TaxonConcept/AccordingTo/Simple would only query those
providers in the pool supporting an output model of TCS.

What I haven't really thought much about is how to prevent (or what to do in
the case it does happen) when someone creates a filter that uses concepts
from each output model supported but are unmapped (as above not in terms of
TAPIR mappings).  Ex.  dwc:/YearCollected = 1978 and
tcs:/DataSet/TaxonConcept/AccordingTo/Simple = Jones.  I guess one way to
handle it would be to run each query on its pool of providers then merge
them back based on the mappings.  For example, with the the above example,
the results after merging may contain only those specimens whose scientific
name is equal to the TaxonName/Simple of those concepts authored by Jones.
(Not sure if that is clear at all).

> When you say "Ensure x supports my output model" that actually means 
> "check that x supports custom output models and mapped the necessary 
> concepts, otherwise check that x supports any query template 
> associated to the output model I want", right?

Hmmm...ok, I just took a look at the schema again to refresh my memory. 
  I thought there was a place in the capabilities to define the output
models that are supported (either that or I was influenced by the
<FullService>/<LiteService> recommendation Marcus made).  I see now that the
only place this is defined is in the query templates.  So the portal would
need to iterate through the query templates to find out which ones supported
the output model the portal was configured to be interested in.  For TAPIR
implementations the portal would most likely favor those query templates
where there was no filter already existing so it wouldn't have to deal with
reconciliation of the filter being defined by the user and the filter within
the query template.  For a generic client/portal I don't know that
supporting custom output models would be the route I would go, but like with
TAPIR we could probably leave a hook for it.

> By the way, looking at the capabilities response, is there any sense 
> on having a provider that supports the search operation, does not 
> accept custom output models, and does not define any query templates?

I can't see how any provider that fit this description would be useful. 
  If it does not support custom output models and doesn't define any query
templates the provider would have no idea into what structure it should be
marshaling the response of the query.

> Regards,
> --
> Renato
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir_lists.tdwg.org

Anyway, just some more slowly coalescing thoughts bouncing around the gray
matter void,

- rob

tdwg-tapir mailing list
tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org

More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list