[Tdwg-guid] Throttling searches [ Scanned for viruses ]

[Sally Hinchcliffe]

It's not an LSID issue per se, but LSIDs will make it harder to slow 
searches down. For instance, Google restricts use of its spell 
checker to 1000 a day by use of a key which is passed in with each 
request. Obviously this can't be done with LSIDs as then they 
wouldn't be the same for each user.
The other reason why it's relevant to LSIDs is simply that providing 
a list of all relevant IPNI LSIDs (not necessary to the LSID 
implementation but a nice to have for caching / lookups for other 
systems using our LSIDs) also makes life easier for the datascrapers 
to operate

Also I thought ... here's a list full of clever people perhaps they 
will have some suggestions 

Sally

> 
> Is this an LSID issue? LSIDs essential provide a binding service between 
> an name and one or more web services (we default to HTTP GET bindings). 
> It isn't really up to the LSID authority to administer any policies 
> regarding the web service but simply to point at it. It is up to the web 
> service to do things like throttling, authentication and authorization.
> 
> Imagine, for example, that the different services had different 
> policies. It may be reasonable not to restrict the getMetadata() calls 
> but to restrict the getData() calls.
> 
> The use of LSIDs does not create any new problems that weren't there 
> with web page scraping - or scraping of any other web service.
> 
> Just my thoughts...
> 
> Roger
> 
> 
> Ricardo Scachetti Pereira wrote:
> >     Sally,
> >
> >     You raised a really important issue that we had not really addressed 
> > at the meeting. Thanks for that.
> >
> >     I would say that we should not constrain the resolution of LSIDs if 
> > we expect our LSID infrastructure to work. LSIDs will be the basis of 
> > our architecture so we better have good support for that.
> >
> >     However, that is sure a limiting factor. Also server efficiency will 
> > likely vary quite a lot, depending on underlying system optimizations 
> > and all.
> >
> >     So I think that the solution for this problem is in caching LSID 
> > responses on the server LSID stack. Basically, after resolving an LSID 
> > once, your server should be able to resolve it again and again really 
> > quickly, until something on the metadata that is related to that id changes.
> >
> >     I haven't looked at this aspect of the LSID software stack, but 
> > maybe others can say something about it. In any case I'll do some 
> > research on it and get back to you.
> >
> >     Again, thanks for bringing it up.
> >
> >     Cheers,
> >
> > Ricardo
> >
> >
> > Sally Hinchcliffe wrote:
> >   
> >> There are enough discontinuities in IPNI ids that 1,2,3 would quickly 
> >> run into the sand. I agree it's not a new problem - I just hate to 
> >> think I'm making life easier for the data scrapers
> >> Sally
> >>
> >>
> >>   
> >>     
> >>> It can be a problem but I'm not sure if there is a simple solution ... and how different is the LSID crawler scenario from an http://www.ipni.org/ipni/plantsearch?id= 1,2,3,4,5 ... 9999999 scenario?
> >>>
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: tdwg-guid-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>> [mailto:tdwg-guid-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]On Behalf Of Sally
> >>> Hinchcliffe
> >>> Sent: 15 June 2006 12:08
> >>> To: tdwg-guid at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>> Subject: [Tdwg-guid] Throttling searches [ Scanned for viruses ]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi all
> >>> another question that has come up here. 
> >>>
> >>> As discussed at the meeting, we're thinking of providing a complete 
> >>> download of all IPNI LSIDs plus a label (name and author, probably) 
> >>> which will be available as an annually produced download
> >>>
> >>> Most people will play nice and just resolve one or two LSIDs as 
> >>> required, but by providing a complete list, we're making it very easy 
> >>> for someone to write a crawler that hits every LSID in turn and 
> >>> basically brings our server to its knees
> >>>
> >>> Anybody know of a good way of enforcing more polite behaviour? We can 
> >>> make the download only available under a data supply agreement that 
> >>> includes a clause limiting hit rates, or we could limit by IP address 
> >>> (but this would ultimately block out services like Rod's simple 
> >>> resolver). I beleive Google's spell checker uses a key which has to 
> >>> be passed in as part of the query - obviously we can't do that with 
> >>> LSIDs
> >>>
> >>> Any thoughts? Anyone think this is a problem? 
> >>>
> >>> Sally
> >>> *** Sally Hinchcliffe
> >>> *** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
> >>> *** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708
> >>> *** S.Hinchcliffe at rbgkew.org.uk
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> TDWG-GUID mailing list
> >>> TDWG-GUID at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-guid
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> TDWG-GUID mailing list
> >>> TDWG-GUID at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-guid
> >>>     
> >>>       
> >> *** Sally Hinchcliffe
> >> *** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
> >> *** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708
> >> *** S.Hinchcliffe at rbgkew.org.uk
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> TDWG-GUID mailing list
> >> TDWG-GUID at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-guid
> >>
> >>   
> >>     
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TDWG-GUID mailing list
> > TDWG-GUID at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-guid
> >
> >   
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> -------------------------------------
>  Roger Hyam
>  Technical Architect
>  Taxonomic Databases Working Group
> -------------------------------------
>  http://www.tdwg.org
>  roger at tdwg.org
>  +44 1578 722782
> -------------------------------------
> 
> 

*** Sally Hinchcliffe
*** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
*** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708
*** S.Hinchcliffe at rbgkew.org.uk