[tdwg-tapir] TapirLite and SimpleFiltering pages

Renato De Giovanni renato at cria.org.br
Fri Oct 21 20:23:02 CEST 2005

Hello Markus,

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 
consider it.

3- "IndexingElementExplosion"

I already included a comment in the wiki. I really think that's a 

Best Regards,

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:
>  <include href="dwc_base.xml"> 
> 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
> bored.
> But my main concern is still the IndexingElementExplosion: 
> http://ww3.bgbm.org/protocolwiki/IndexingElementExplosion
> I hope to have some new ideas about the explosion in my next mail.
> Thanks,
> Markus

More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list