Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir: capabilities

[John R. W. <tu...@be...>]

A little off topic, but it occurs to me that a great deal of work is still
ongoing with TAPIR, which suggests to me that it may be warranted to
re-state my request for a simple message type - a log request. This request
would be the same as a search request, except that the caller doesn't need =
a
response. Providers would use this type of request to log data usage if the
data were retrieved from a cache elsewhere. I remember talking about this i=
n
Berlin, at which time there was supposed to be a feature freeze. Clearly
we've gone beyond that, so I'm requesting it again.

On 7/17/06, Renato De Giovanni <re...@cr...> wrote:
>
> 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, "D=F6ring, 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdw...@li...
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
>