[tdwg-tapir] conceptual binding

[Renato De Giovanni]

Hi Javier,

>>>From the current TAPIR schema, concept ids follow the 
"qualifiedConceptIdType", which is explained as:

"A simpleType to represent qualified concept identifiers. This can 
either be the full format NAMESPACE#LOCAL_CONCEPT or an alias which 
can be any string."

So you're right that local concepts may not use XPath. It's a choice. 
I was just following Markus examples - no intention to suggest how 
the "gcp" conceptual schema should identify its concepts.

Now looking at the "simpleXPathType" (used by the node's path 
attribute) it seems that the string restriction does not allow for 
namespace prefixes. So I guess this is something that needs to be 
fixed in the schema.

Best Regards,
--
Renato

On 2 Mar 2006 at 17:11, Javier de la Torre wrote:

> Uhmm...
> 
> Did I understand this incorrectly?
> The change in the mapping would only be qualifying concepts in the
> path attribute not in the concept ids.
> 
> I think we agree on that the concept ids does not have anything to do
> with XML schema or Xpaths no? Is just "by coincide" that we are using
> something "similar".
> 
> Javier.
> 
> On 3/3/06, Renato De Giovanni <renato at cria.org.br> wrote:
> > Hi Markus,
> >
> > This is really good news for the PyWrapper!
> >
> > Now concerning your question, I think we should really try to avoid
> > defining concepts with compound XML schemas. It's a lot cleaner and
> > more elegant using gcp#accession/FullScientificName to map local
> > databases and to use in filters. As you said, the WFS response would
> > just be one of the possible output models making use of the concepts.
> >
> > The real xpaths to WFS elements (including namespaces) would only be
> > used in the output model mapping section:
> >
> > <node
> > path="/wfs:FeatureCollection/gml:featureMember/gcp:accession/gcp:FullS
> > cientificName">
> > <concept id="gcp#accession/FullScientificName"/>
> > </node>
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > --
> > Renato
> >
> > On 28 Feb 2006 at 11:38, "Döring, Markus" wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > > I recently added support for schema imports in pywrapper mainly to support multiple namespaces in the repsonse.
> > > Me (and Javier) wanted to allow something like this:
> > >
> > > <wfs:FeatureCollection
> > >     xmlns:wfs="http://www.opengis.net/wfs"
> > >     xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
> > >     xmlns:gcp="http://www.ipgri.org/schemas/gcp_passport_gml/1.0">
> > >     <gml:featureMember>
> > >         <gcp:accession fid="accession.12">
> > >             <gcp:GermplasmID>12</gcp:GermplasmID>
> > >             <gcp:FAOInstituteCode>ES</gcp:FAOInstituteCode>
> > >             <gcp:FullScientificName>Quercus ilex</gcp:FullScientificName>
> > >         </gcp:accession>
> > >     </gml:featureMember>
> > > </wfs:FeatureCollection>
> > >
> > > Here comes my problem:
> > > How do we refer to the FullScientificName concept in TAPIR?
> > >
> > > As a convention for schemas we said to create the fully qualified concept from the namespace and the simple xpath to the element. So somethinkg like this:
> > >
> > > http://www.opengis.net/wfs#/FeatureCollection/featureMember/accession/FullScientificName
> > >
> > > A real xpath to that element would of course include several namespaces:
> > > /wfs:FeatureCollection/gml:featureMember/gcp:accession/gcp:FullScientificName
> > >
> > > Could it be that we never need to refer to "compound" concepts anyway? A provider would probably map his db to the GCP schema alone. The WFS response is only the responded view/data model and we would still just use gcp#accession/FullScientificName as the qualified concept in filters. This is also true for our simple extension schemas I think (EFG for ABCD, all extensions for DwC). But arent there other cases?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Markus