[tdwg-tapir] TapirLite and SimpleFiltering pages
m.doering at BGBM.org
Mon Oct 24 12:47:05 CEST 2005
I totally agree. I can't remember who suggested the include idea. I cant see any further arguments for it right now. Lets drop includes for now.
Von: tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] Im Auftrag von Roger Hyam
Gesendet: Montag, 24. Oktober 2005 12:31
An: Renato De Giovanni
Cc: tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
Betreff: Re: [tdwg-tapir] TapirLite and SimpleFiltering pages
Include mechanisms: Does having views referred to by URL remove the problem of having some form of include mechanism actually in the view. The file that is retrieved from the URL can be created by whatever dynamic means is most useful - could be XSLT or even old fashioned server side includes.
No single view is likely to get so large it is worth dicing up is it? Perhaps this is something that could be push forward into a future version?
Renato De Giovanni wrote:
Some quick comments about the three topics:
1- Filter parameters:
I do remember we have discussed about that before, but somehow I had
the impression that we didn't come to any concrete conclusion (and if
we did, I think that's something we left out of the integration
document, so, I'm sorry if I forgot about this detail...). Anyway, I
definitely agree that it would be better if we could have it
formalized as an attribute.
2- Include directives
Not sure if there'll be significant benefits here, but if someone
could give an interesting example of such functionality, maybe we can
I already included a comment in the wiki. I really think that's a
On 21 Oct 2005 at 19:40, Döring, Markus wrote:
Hi Roger & Renato,
I somehow wasn't subscribed to the list properly, so I nearly repeated
all of Renatos comments on the wiki without being aware of this mail
I think we said earlier that all parameters in views should be
optional by nature - this is also how the pywrapper implements it.
Does it make sense for any view to have mandatory parameters in
filters? If a parameter is not being used in the actual view call,
then this part of the filter should be ignored. Otherwise it would
evaluate to false and therefore no AND combinations of parameters
would be possible. But if we have a view exposing only one parameter,
lets say the objectID, and this one is not given - that also doesnt
make too much sense. So this could be a case where a parameter is
required. >From the formal aspect I support Renatos idea of having
another flag "optional" or "required" to indicate this. We could also
use an attribute "use='required'" as in attribute definitions in xml
schema. By default I think all parameters should be optional.
Most of the changes are included now in the current schema proposal,
but views are still a separate category in capabilities. I dont mind
to change this the way renato showed below.
One other issue to discuss is importing/including directives in views
and schemas. Would it be of great value to have includes in views?
If so, would we need include directives on the base of the protocol:
or should we define xml processing instructions like this:
<?include href="dwc_base.xml" ?>
If we want to be able to do includes at any place in a document, I
think we have to go for PIs. Just something to think about if you are
But my main concern is still the IndexingElementExplosion:
I hope to have some new ideas about the explosion in my next mail.
tdwg-tapir mailing list
tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
Taxonomic Databases Working Group
roger at tdwg.org
+44 1578 722782
More information about the tdwg-tag