[tdwg-tapir] Tapir protocol - Harvest methods?

Kevin Richards RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz
Mon May 5 23:17:41 CEST 2008

I think I agree here.
The harvesting "procedure" is really defined outside the Tapir
protocol, is it not?  So it is really an agreement between the harvester
and the harvestees.
So what is really needed here is the standard procedure for maintaining
a "harvestable" dataset and the standard procedure for harvesting that
We have a general rule at Landcare, that we never delete records in our
datasets - they are either deprecated in favour of another record, and
so the resolution of that record would point to the new record, or the
are set to a state of "deleted", but are still kept in the dataset, and
can be resolved (which would indicate a state of deleted).

>>> "Renato De Giovanni" <renato at cria.org.br> 6/05/2008 7:33 a.m. >>>
Hi Markus,

I would suggest creating new concepts for incremental harvesting, 
either in the data standards themselves or in some new extension. In 
the case of TAPIR, GBIF could easily check the mapped concepts before 
deciding between incremental or full harvesting.

Actually it could be just one new concept such as "recordStatus" or 
"deletionFlag". Or perhaps you could also want to create your own 
definition for dateLastModified indicating which set of concepts 
should be considered to see if something has changed or not, but I 
guess this level of granularity would be difficult to be supported.


On 5 May 2008 at 11:24, Markus Döring wrote:

> Phil,
> incremental harvesting is not implemented on the GBIF side as far as
> am aware. And I dont think that will be a simple thing to implement
> the current system. Also, even if we can detect only the changed  
> records since the last harevesting via dateLastModified we still have
> no information about deletions. We could have an arrangement saying 

> that you keep deleted records as empty records with just the ID and 

> nothing else (I vaguely remember LSIDs were supposed to work like
> too). But that also needs to be supported on your side then, never  
> entirely removing any record. I will have a discussion with the
> at GBIF about that.
> Markus

tdwg-tapir mailing list
tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org 

WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or
They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used,
copied or disseminated
by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender by 
return email and delete this message and any attachments.

The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not
necessarily reflect the
official views of Landcare Research. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/attachments/20080506/110df12f/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpg
Size: 22397 bytes
Desc: JPEG image
Url : http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/attachments/20080506/110df12f/attachment.jpg 

More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list