[tdwg-tapir] common operation base type

Steven Perry smperry at ku.edu
Thu Nov 17 14:33:16 CET 2005


I think this is a good idea.  In instance documents, would these 
attributes then be on the ping, capabilities, metadata, inventory and 
search request elements?  This is where they seem to belong.

However, inventory and search are already typed (to restrict the 
elements that can occur within them).  If you agree that the top level 
request elements (ping, capabilities, etc.) are the place for these new 
attributes, then can I suggest using an attributeGroup to define them 
(perhaps called requestParameters) instead of a complex type.  This way 
we avoid the messy complex type extension mechanism (which would require 
that inventoryParameters and searchParameters extend this new request 
parameters complex type).

My brain is already back in the parallel RDF universe, so this may be a 
foolish idea.  If you've got a better solution in mind or see a problem 
with this approach, let me know.  Here's a link to an article on this 
topic http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/10/29/derivation.html


Döring, Markus wrote:

>this morning I was thinking whether we should create a common operation base type, that would have some attributes resembling the global GET parameters:
>This way we dont have to put those parameters into the header where they are not really belonging.
>Any objections to modify the protocol this way?
>tdwg-tapir mailing list
>tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org

More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list