[tdwg-tapir] AW: [PyWrapper-devel] WG: tapir: capabilities

Renato De Giovanni renato at cria.org.br
Wed Jul 19 17:11:00 CEST 2006

Right, Markus. I can see your point. You are correct that it should 
be possible to dynamically process a query template refereced by a 
view request.

But back to your original question, I still think it's fine to keep 
the known output models as part of the search capabilities. Unless a 
provider that wants to work with a specific set of output models for 
some reason doesn't want to offer the search operation, only the view 
operation. Can you see any reason for that?

So, maybe we should try to define how the view operation could be 
used in different scenarios:

TAPIRLite providers
(no support for the search operation)
Providers must advertise the query templates that are supported. 
View requests must reference one of the supported query templates.

Intermediate TAPIR providers
(support search operation with "static" processing of output models)
Providers don't need to advertise query templates (optional), but 
they do need to advertise the output models supported. 
View requests must reference a query template that makes use of one 
of the supported output models.

Full TAPIR providers
(support search operation with "dynamic" processing of output models)
Providers don't need to advertise any query templates or output 
models (optional). 
View requests must reference a query template that makes use of any 
output model which references concepts that are mapped by the 

I think this picture shows one of the ways of setting up a TAPIR 
network based on the view operation. By defining one or more query 
templates, it should be possible to seamlessly interact with 
different types of TAPIR providers.

And since the idea of PyWrapper is to become full TAPIR provider, it 
actually doesn't need to worry about advertising supported query 
templates or output models.

Let me know if it all makes sense...

On 18 Jul 2006 at 10:32, "Döring, Markus" wrote:

> yes and no.
> sure you need a template for views. but do we force providers to
> register supported templates? If an implementation can handle
> dynamic models, it surely can handle "dynamic" templates. And even
> if a providers says I only understand those 4 models, all query
> templates based on those 4 models should be easy to be processed. So
> dynamic/static models are important for views as well, cause
> templates are based on them.
> But if the intention of views was/is for TapirLite only, then
> registered lists of templates are needed and dynamic templates dont
> make too much sense. And searches and inventories without templates
> could always also be called through their respective GET versions as
> well. So yes, an implementation could process "dynamic" templates,
> but maybe we just dont need them. 
> Then again if providers need to configure supported templates, all
> installations would be different - unless the implementation can
> handle "dynamic" templates and just retrieves all available query
> templates for their supported models from a central service and
> registers them automatically for the provider.
> -- Markus
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: pywrapper-devel-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net 
> > [mailto:pywrapper-devel-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net] Im 
> > Auftrag von Renato De Giovanni
> > Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juli 2006 23:01
> > An: tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
> > Cc: pywrapper-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
> > Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel] WG: tapir: capabilities
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > If I remember well, the "view" operation was re-included in 
> > the protocol just to handle query templates, especifically 
> > for TapirLite providers. So if someone wants to query a 
> > provider using some external output model that should be 
> > dynamically parsed, then the "search" operation must be used 
> > instead (using either XML or simple GET request). View 
> > operations are really bound to query templates, and they are 
> > not allowed to specify "filter" or "partial" parameters.
> > --
> > Renato
> > 
> > On 17 Jul 2006 at 21:26, "Döring, Markus" wrote:
> > 
> > > I was just about to edit the schema and realizing that 
> > output models 
> > > are only specified for searches. but what about views? they 
> > use query 
> > > templates, yes. but only the ones listed in capabilities? we
> should 
> > > have dynamic ones here as well I think. And they link back to 
> > > static/dynamic models.
> > > 
> > > So should models maybe become a seperate section not tight to 
> > > search/view operations? I am going to modify the schema 
> > nevertheless 
> > > already to accomodate the changes below - ignoring views for
> now.
> > > 
> > > Markus

More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list