[tdwg-tapir] {Definitely Spam?} Modification inthe Inventoryresponse

Javier de la Torre jatorre at gmail.com
Wed Oct 26 09:24:32 CEST 2005


Hi all,

I don't know which name I prefer. I like label because is very  
natural, but makes the protocol not so technical :D What about tagName?

No, seriously, I like label.

Regarding the default value, I already included in the schema that I  
sent "value" as the default value (uf!).

Javi.

On Oct 25, 2005, at 5:56 PM, Döring, Markus wrote:

> ...and what about naming the attribute just "label" ?
> More humanlike, isn't it?
>
>   <concept path='dwc:/Country' label='Country' />
>   <concept path='dwc:/Country' tag='Country' />
>   <concept path='dwc:/Country' elementName='Country' />
>
> Markus
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tapir- 
> bounces at lists.tdwg.org] Im Auftrag von Roger Hyam
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Oktober 2005 15:24
> An: Döring, Markus
> Cc: tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
> Betreff: Re: [tdwg-tapir] {Definitely Spam?} Modification inthe  
> Inventoryresponse
>
> Seems OK to me as well
>
> Döring, Markus wrote:
>
>
>> I like the idea.
>> It will make the inventory a little bit more "customizable"  
>> similar to the searches.
>> Are there any objections or other preferred names for the new  
>> attribute?
>>
>> Could be for example elementName, responseElement, responseName,  
>> tag, tagname, name, renamed. I think I quite like tag.
>>
>> And I think it should be optional and default to the <value> tag  
>> if not supplied.
>>
>> Markus
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
>> [mailto:tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] Im Auftrag von Javier  
>> privat
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Oktober 2005 12:41
>> An: tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
>> Betreff: [tdwg-tapir] {Definitely Spam?} Modification in the
>> Inventoryresponse
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Samy Gaiji, from IPGRI, sent us yesterday an email with comments  
>> about TAPIR. He consider the response format of the inventory  
>> operation inconvenient. For those not remembering an inventory  
>> operation looks like this:
>>
>> Request:
>> ------------
>> <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
>> <request>
>>  <header />
>>  <inventory count='true' start='0' limit='50'
>>  xmlns:dwc='http://digir.net/schema/conceptual/darwin/2003/1.0'>
>>    <concepts>
>>      <concept path='dwc:/Country' />
>>      <concept path='dwc:/Genus' />
>>    </concepts>
>>  </inventory>
>> </request>
>> ----
>> Response
>> -------------
>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>> <response>
>>    <header></header>
>>    <inventory>
>>        <record>
>>            <value>AUSTRALIA</value>
>>            <value>Calicium</Genus>
>>        </record>
>>        <summary start="0" totalReturned="50" totalMatched="73"
>> next="50" />
>>    </inventory>
>> </response>
>> --------------
>>
>> He find hards to parse after that all concepts are named 'value'  
>> and having to trust on that the elements are returned in the same  
>> order as they were request. I don't know, for me this does not  
>> look like a big issue, but in any case here is a proposal that  
>> makes possible to assign names to the elements that are responded.
>>
>> Request:
>> -----------------------------------
>> <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
>> <request>
>>  <header />
>>  <inventory count='true' start='0' limit='50'
>>  xmlns:dwc='http://digir.net/schema/conceptual/darwin/2003/1.0'>
>>    <concepts>
>>      <concept path='dwc:/Country' elementName='Country' />
>>      <concept path='dwc:/Genus' elementName='Genus' />
>>    </concepts>
>>  </inventory>
>> </request>
>> -------------------------------
>> Response:
>> -------------------------------
>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>> <response>
>>    <header></header>
>>    <inventory>
>>        <record>
>>            <Country>AUSTRALIA</Country>
>>            <Genus>Calicium</Genus>
>>        </record>
>>        <summary start="0" totalReturned="50" totalMatched="73"
>> next="50" />
>>    </inventory>
>> </response>
>> ------------------------
>>
>> You can find attached a modification of the latest protocol schema  
>> that includes this.
>>
>> What are your thoughts on this?
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tdwg-tapir mailing list
>> tdwg-tapir at 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 at tdwg.org
>  +44 1578 722782
> -------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir_lists.tdwg.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir_lists.tdwg.org
>





More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list