pywrapper-devel

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

[<m.d...@BG...>]

John,
all changes going on with TAPIR right now are really only changes in =
terminology or removing inconsistencies we did not detect before we =
started the documentation and final implementation.


But nevertheless I would support your request. Especially from the =
implementation side of view this is a trivial change to the code. So why =
dont add it? Just some additional thoughts:


- Ive added a "simulation" mode already to my code where no SQL gets =
executed but just logged. So you can test configurations without risking =
sending off killer statements. Thats similar to logOnly I guess, =
returning nothing but diagnostics. What would you suggest to be returned =
for a logOnly request? just the empty TAPIR envelope? Nothing? <OK>?

- would this log-only request not be needed for all requests? at least =
for inventories? So it would be easiest to have a new logOnly parameter =
in the header or "request element" just after the header? something like =
<search logOnly=3D"true">



-- Markus
 =20

> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: pyw...@li...=20
> [mailto:pyw...@li...] Im=20
> Auftrag von John R. WIECZOREK
> Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juli 2006 23:30
> An: Renato De Giovanni
> Cc: pyw...@li...; tdw...@li...
> Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:=20
> capabilities
>=20
> A little off topic, but it occurs to me that a great deal of=20
> work is still ongoing with TAPIR, which suggests to me that=20
> it may be warranted to re-state my request for a simple=20
> message type - a log request. This request would be the same=20
> as a search request, except that the caller doesn't need a=20
> response. Providers would use this type of request to log=20
> data usage if the data were retrieved from a cache elsewhere.=20
> I remember talking about this in Berlin, at which time there=20
> was supposed to be a feature freeze. Clearly we've gone=20
> beyond that, so I'm requesting it again.=20
>=20
>=20
> On 7/17/06, Renato De Giovanni <re...@cr...> wrote:
>=20
> 	Hi,
> =09
> 	If I remember well, the "view" operation was re-included in the
> 	protocol just to handle query templates, especifically=20
> for TapirLite
> 	providers. So if someone wants to query a provider using some=20
> 	external output model that should be dynamically=20
> parsed, then the
> 	"search" operation must be used instead (using either=20
> XML or simple
> 	GET request). View operations are really bound to query=20
> templates,
> 	and they are not allowed to specify "filter" or=20
> "partial" parameters.
> 	--
> 	Renato
> =09
> 	On 17 Jul 2006 at 21:26, "D=F6ring, Markus" wrote:
> =09
> 	> I was just about to edit the schema and realizing=20
> that output models=20
> 	> are only specified for searches. but what about=20
> views? they use
> 	> query templates, yes. but only the ones listed in=20
> capabilities? we
> 	> should have dynamic ones here as well I think. And=20
> they link back to=20
> 	> static/dynamic models.
> 	>
> 	> So should models maybe become a seperate section not tight to
> 	> search/view operations? I am going to modify the=20
> schema nevertheless
> 	> already to accomodate the changes below - ignoring=20
> views for now.=20
> 	>
> 	> Markus
> =09
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	tdwg-tapir mailing list
> 	tdw...@li...
> 	http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir=20
> <http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir>=20
> =09
>=20
>=20
>=20

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

[Javier de la T. <ja...@mn...>]

I am not sure about this,

I still think that portals should be gathering this data and making =20
it available for data providers...

But in any case if you like it then I agree with MArkus that the best =20=

is to include another parameter in the operationRequestGroup.

I havent checked but what happens if you do an extension there with =20
an attribute that is implementation specific? A qualified attribute. =20
Will this still validate against our schema? You were discussing =20
about qualification of attributes before no?

Javi.

On 18/07/2006, at 10:41, D=F6ring, Markus wrote:

> John,
> all changes going on with TAPIR right now are really only changes =20
> in terminology or removing inconsistencies we did not detect before =20=

> we started the documentation and final implementation.
>
>
> But nevertheless I would support your request. Especially from the =20
> implementation side of view this is a trivial change to the code. =20
> So why dont add it? Just some additional thoughts:
>
>
> - Ive added a "simulation" mode already to my code where no SQL =20
> gets executed but just logged. So you can test configurations =20
> without risking sending off killer statements. Thats similar to =20
> logOnly I guess, returning nothing but diagnostics. What would you =20
> suggest to be returned for a logOnly request? just the empty TAPIR =20
> envelope? Nothing? <OK>?
>
> - would this log-only request not be needed for all requests? at =20
> least for inventories? So it would be easiest to have a new logOnly =20=

> parameter in the header or "request element" just after the header? =20=

> something like <search logOnly=3D"true">
>
>
>
> -- Markus
>
>
>> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: pyw...@li...
>> [mailto:pyw...@li...] Im
>> Auftrag von John R. WIECZOREK
>> Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juli 2006 23:30
>> An: Renato De Giovanni
>> Cc: pyw...@li...; tdw...@li...
>> Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:
>> capabilities
>>
>> 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 in 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,
>> =09
>> 	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
>> =09
>> 	On 17 Jul 2006 at 21:26, "D=F6ring, Markus" wrote:
>> =09
>> 	> 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
>> =09
>> 	_______________________________________________
>> 	tdwg-tapir mailing list
>> 	tdw...@li...
>> 	http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
>> <http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir>
>> =09
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdw...@li...
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir

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

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

I appreciate that you will consider this request. I always thought it would
be trivial to implement. Your simulation mode sounds very much like what I
had in mind. I hadn't thought it necessary to get a response from a log
request, but if there was a simple response, it could be used as a ping, or
it could be used to retry logging until the provider did respond. So,
something like <log request received>. I think the addition of logOnly
attribute is a good one, and could apply to every request type.

Javi, I don't disagree that portals SHOULD log the data usage, especially t=
o
cover the situations where a provider doesn't respond. I also think that
having the information logged at the provider is a responsible course of
action, since they will have immediate access to the usage statistics that
way. It will be much easier for a portal builder to send log requests than
it will be to build the infrastructure and interfaces to logs, therefore it
is more likely to actually get done.


On 7/18/06, Javier de la Torre <ja...@mn...> wrote:
>
> I am not sure about this,
>
> I still think that portals should be gathering this data and making
> it available for data providers...
>
> But in any case if you like it then I agree with MArkus that the best
> is to include another parameter in the operationRequestGroup.
>
> I havent checked but what happens if you do an extension there with
> an attribute that is implementation specific? A qualified attribute.
> Will this still validate against our schema? You were discussing
> about qualification of attributes before no?
>
> Javi.
>
> On 18/07/2006, at 10:41, D=F6ring, Markus wrote:
>
> > John,
> > all changes going on with TAPIR right now are really only changes
> > in terminology or removing inconsistencies we did not detect before
> > we started the documentation and final implementation.
> >
> >
> > But nevertheless I would support your request. Especially from the
> > implementation side of view this is a trivial change to the code.
> > So why dont add it? Just some additional thoughts:
> >
> >
> > - Ive added a "simulation" mode already to my code where no SQL
> > gets executed but just logged. So you can test configurations
> > without risking sending off killer statements. Thats similar to
> > logOnly I guess, returning nothing but diagnostics. What would you
> > suggest to be returned for a logOnly request? just the empty TAPIR
> > envelope? Nothing? <OK>?
> >
> > - would this log-only request not be needed for all requests? at
> > least for inventories? So it would be easiest to have a new logOnly
> > parameter in the header or "request element" just after the header?
> > something like <search logOnly=3D"true">
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Markus
> >
> >
> >> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: pyw...@li...
> >> [mailto:pyw...@li...] Im
> >> Auftrag von John R. WIECZOREK
> >> Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juli 2006 23:30
> >> An: Renato De Giovanni
> >> Cc: pyw...@li...; tdw...@li...
> >> Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:
> >> capabilities
> >>
> >> 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 in 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
> >> <http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > tdwg-tapir mailing list
> > tdw...@li...
> > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
>
>

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

[Renato De G. <re...@cr...>]

Hi John,

Implementing the log request was never a problem. We discussed about 
that again during the Madrid meeting, and only after that a feature 
freeze was suggested. It's true that PyWrapper is being adjusted now 
to conform to the new specs, and considering that DiGIR2 (or wasabi) 
postponed implementation of TAPIR, I suppose it should not be a big 
problem to make additional changes if necessary.

The main problem I had with the log request was that it would 
probably not solve the issue behind it, which is to track usage by 
data aggregators. I still have the same feeling, and I can easily 
imagine situations when it would not be easy or even possible to 
translate searches on top of cached databases to TAPIR requests.

But maybe I'm wrong, and if you all think it's a good feature then we 
can try to include it. However, I do think that providers should be 
able to advertise as the part of capabilities if they want to receive 
log requests or not. 

To me it also sounds like a new operation, especially if it's only 
related to search. It could make sense for view, inventory and 
metadata operations. Maybe capabilities too. But it doesn't make 
sense for ping. Well, maybe it could make sense for ping if the data 
aggregator monitors provider status and accepts similar requests on 
top of its results...

So, yes, it could be a new attribute "logOnly" as part of the 
operationRequestGroup with an answer </received> (just after the 
response header). And we could add an attribute "acceptLogRequests" 
in the <operations> element in capabilities responses. The other 
option would be to include a new operation, but maybe it's better to 
just have it as an optional attribute for all operations.

Best Regards,
--
Renato

On 19 Jul 2006 at 10:32, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
> 
> I appreciate that you will consider this request. I always thought
> it 
> would be trivial to implement. Your simulation mode sounds very much
> like what I had in mind. I hadn't thought it necessary to get a 
> response from a log request, but if there was a simple response, it
> could be used as a ping, or it could be used to retry logging until
> the provider did respond. So, something like <log request received>.
> I think the addition oflogOnly attribute is a good one, and could 
> apply to every request type. 
> 
> Javi, I don't disagree that portals SHOULD log the data usage, 
> especially to cover the situations where a provider doesn't respond.
> I also think that having the information logged at the provider is a
> responsible course of action, since they will have immediate access
> to the usage statistics that way. It will be much easier for a
> portal 
> builder to send log requests than it will be to build the 
> infrastructure and interfaces to logs, therefore it is more likely
> to 
> actually get done. 
> 
> 
> On 7/18/06, Javier de la Torre <ja...@mn...> wrote: 
>     I am not sure about this,
>     
>     I still think that portals should be gathering this data and
> making
>     it available for data providers... 
>     
>     But in any case if you like it then I agree with MArkus that the
> best
>     is to include another parameter in the operationRequestGroup.
>     
>     I havent checked but what happens if you do an extension there
> with
>     an attribute that is implementation specific? A qualified
> attribute.
>     Will this still validate against our schema? You were
> discussing
>     about qualification of attributes before no?
>     
>     Javi.
>     
>     On 18/07/2006, at 10:41, D=F6ring, Markus wrote: 
>     
>     > John,
>     > all changes going on with TAPIR right now are really only
> changes
>     > in terminology or removing inconsistencies we did not detect
> before
>     > we started the documentation and final implementation. 
>     >
>     >
>     > But nevertheless I would support your request. Especially from
> the
>     > implementation side of view this is a trivial change to the
> code.
>     > So why dont add it? Just some additional thoughts: 
>     >
>     >
>     > - Ive added a "simulation" mode already to my code where no
> SQL
>     > gets executed but just logged. So you can test
> configurations
>     > without risking sending off killer statements. Thats similar
> to 
>     > logOnly I guess, returning nothing but diagnostics. What would
> you
>     > suggest to be returned for a logOnly request? just the empty
> TAPIR
>     > envelope? Nothing? <OK>?
>     >
>     > - would this log-only request not be needed for all requests?
> at 
>     > least for inventories? So it would be easiest to have a new
> logOnly
>     > parameter in the header or "request element" just after the
> header?
>     > something like <search logOnly=3D"true">
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > -- Markus
>     >
>     >
>     >> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
>     >> Von: pyw...@li... 
>     >> [mailto:pyw...@li...] Im
>     >> Auftrag von John R. WIECZOREK
>     >> Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juli 2006 23:30 
>     >> An: Renato De Giovanni
>     >> Cc: pyw...@li...; tdwg-
>     ta...@li... 
>     >> Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:
>     >> capabilities
>     >>
>     >> 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 in 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

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

[Roger H. <ro...@td...>]

I thought this sounded like a good idea but since reading Renato's 
message I am now confused.

If a user does a search on a portal and gets 100 results and looks at 
the first 10 does the provider of the 11th record get notified? Their 
data has been used because it has been given in the count.  Another 
example would be if a portal gave a distribution map to 10km squares 
based in data from multiple providers. Each data point is made from 
several suppliers data and removal of any one supplier's data may not 
change the map. Do we notify them all?

I could envisage a GUID based system just about. The call to the log 
function would basically say "Some one has accessed the data that I got 
from you that you tag with this GUID" but I can't see how this would 
work on a search based system. The log call would mean "Some one 
searched for something that made used of data I got from a search I did 
on you once".

So really the only service we need is a GUID based one. Perhaps 
extending the LSID resolution spec would be more appropriate?

Roger


Renato De Giovanni wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Implementing the log request was never a problem. We discussed about 
> that again during the Madrid meeting, and only after that a feature 
> freeze was suggested. It's true that PyWrapper is being adjusted now 
> to conform to the new specs, and considering that DiGIR2 (or wasabi) 
> postponed implementation of TAPIR, I suppose it should not be a big 
> problem to make additional changes if necessary.
>
> The main problem I had with the log request was that it would 
> probably not solve the issue behind it, which is to track usage by 
> data aggregators. I still have the same feeling, and I can easily 
> imagine situations when it would not be easy or even possible to 
> translate searches on top of cached databases to TAPIR requests.
>
> But maybe I'm wrong, and if you all think it's a good feature then we 
> can try to include it. However, I do think that providers should be 
> able to advertise as the part of capabilities if they want to receive 
> log requests or not. 
>
> To me it also sounds like a new operation, especially if it's only 
> related to search. It could make sense for view, inventory and 
> metadata operations. Maybe capabilities too. But it doesn't make 
> sense for ping. Well, maybe it could make sense for ping if the data 
> aggregator monitors provider status and accepts similar requests on 
> top of its results...
>
> So, yes, it could be a new attribute "logOnly" as part of the 
> operationRequestGroup with an answer </received> (just after the 
> response header). And we could add an attribute "acceptLogRequests" 
> in the <operations> element in capabilities responses. The other 
> option would be to include a new operation, but maybe it's better to 
> just have it as an optional attribute for all operations.
>
> Best Regards,
> --
> Renato
>
> On 19 Jul 2006 at 10:32, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
>   
>> I appreciate that you will consider this request. I always thought
>> it 
>> would be trivial to implement. Your simulation mode sounds very much
>> like what I had in mind. I hadn't thought it necessary to get a 
>> response from a log request, but if there was a simple response, it
>> could be used as a ping, or it could be used to retry logging until
>> the provider did respond. So, something like <log request received>.
>> I think the addition oflogOnly attribute is a good one, and could 
>> apply to every request type. 
>>
>> Javi, I don't disagree that portals SHOULD log the data usage, 
>> especially to cover the situations where a provider doesn't respond.
>> I also think that having the information logged at the provider is a
>> responsible course of action, since they will have immediate access
>> to the usage statistics that way. It will be much easier for a
>> portal 
>> builder to send log requests than it will be to build the 
>> infrastructure and interfaces to logs, therefore it is more likely
>> to 
>> actually get done. 
>>
>>
>> On 7/18/06, Javier de la Torre <ja...@mn...> wrote: 
>>     I am not sure about this,
>>     
>>     I still think that portals should be gathering this data and
>> making
>>     it available for data providers... 
>>     
>>     But in any case if you like it then I agree with MArkus that the
>> best
>>     is to include another parameter in the operationRequestGroup.
>>     
>>     I havent checked but what happens if you do an extension there
>> with
>>     an attribute that is implementation specific? A qualified
>> attribute.
>>     Will this still validate against our schema? You were
>> discussing
>>     about qualification of attributes before no?
>>     
>>     Javi.
>>     
>>     On 18/07/2006, at 10:41, Döring, Markus wrote: 
>>     
>>     > John,
>>     > all changes going on with TAPIR right now are really only
>> changes
>>     > in terminology or removing inconsistencies we did not detect
>> before
>>     > we started the documentation and final implementation. 
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > But nevertheless I would support your request. Especially from
>> the
>>     > implementation side of view this is a trivial change to the
>> code.
>>     > So why dont add it? Just some additional thoughts: 
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > - Ive added a "simulation" mode already to my code where no
>> SQL
>>     > gets executed but just logged. So you can test
>> configurations
>>     > without risking sending off killer statements. Thats similar
>> to 
>>     > logOnly I guess, returning nothing but diagnostics. What would
>> you
>>     > suggest to be returned for a logOnly request? just the empty
>> TAPIR
>>     > envelope? Nothing? <OK>?
>>     >
>>     > - would this log-only request not be needed for all requests?
>> at 
>>     > least for inventories? So it would be easiest to have a new
>> logOnly
>>     > parameter in the header or "request element" just after the
>> header?
>>     > something like <search logOnly="true">
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > -- Markus
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>     >> Von: pyw...@li... 
>>     >> [mailto:pyw...@li...] Im
>>     >> Auftrag von John R. WIECZOREK
>>     >> Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juli 2006 23:30 
>>     >> An: Renato De Giovanni
>>     >> Cc: pyw...@li...; tdwg-
>>     ta...@li... 
>>     >> Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:
>>     >> capabilities
>>     >>
>>     >> 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 in 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, "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
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdw...@li...
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
>
>   


-- 

-------------------------------------
 Roger Hyam
 Technical Architect
 Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
 http://www.tdwg.org
 ro...@td...
 +44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------

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

[Donald H. <dh...@gb...>]

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I tend to agree that this will only really work in cases in which the
cache is structured and used precisely as a performance enhancement for
the same requests that are then forwarded with the logOnly attribute.&nbsp;
In other cases the mapping may be more or less meaningless and the
necessary traffic could be enormous (and hard to interpret)<br>
<br>
I'd rather see us putting the effort into thinking about the real
reporting needs of primary data providers and how we can meet them.&nbsp; I
obviously have this as a critical problem and will have to find
efficient and informative ways to notify providers of the usage of
their data at several different mirror sites (and ideally also at
various downstream portals).&nbsp; The range of different things that could
be worth reporting includes:<br>
<br>
<ol>
  <li>We indexed/cached your resource (some or all records)</li>
  <li>We showed a user the metadata for your resource</li>
  <li>We showed a user a high-level map of the range of occurrences
from your resource</li>
  <li>We showed a user a high-level map of the range of occurrences for
a taxon (or geographic region) including some of your records</li>
  <li>We displayed a count of the records from your resource relating
to a taxon (or geographic region)</li>
  <li>We showed a subset of fields from some records from your resource</li>
  <li>We showed the full detail for some records from your resource
using a cached copy</li>
  <li>We showed the full detail for some records from your resource
using a freshly accessed copy</li>
</ol>
There is also the issue of how to report that we have determined that
some records are relevant to a user request based on external taxonomic
or geographic knowledge (i.e. NOT using any fields that actually would
find the record on a TAPIR request to your resource).<br>
<br>
I think that logOnly could be a useful tool in some circumstances but
it cannot be the full picture.<br>
<br>
Donald<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Hobern (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dh...@gb...">dh...@gb...</a>)
Deputy Director for Informatics 
Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat 
Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
Tel: +45-35321483   Mobile: +45-28751483   Fax: +45-35321480
------------------------------------------------------------
</pre>
<br>
<br>
Roger Hyam wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid...@td..." type="cite">
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <br>
I thought this sounded like a good idea but since reading Renato's
message I am now confused.<br>
  <br>
If a user does a search on a portal and gets 100 results and looks at
the first 10 does the provider of the 11th record get notified? Their
data has been used because it has been given in the count.&nbsp; Another
example would be if a portal gave a distribution map to 10km squares
based in data from multiple providers. Each data point is made from
several suppliers data and removal of any one supplier's data may not
change the map. Do we notify them all?<br>
  <br>
I could envisage a GUID based system just about. The call to the log
function would basically say "Some one has accessed the data that I got
from you that you tag with this GUID" but I can't see how this would
work on a search based system. The log call would mean "Some one
searched for something that made used of data I got from a search I did
on you once".<br>
  <br>
So really the only service we need is a GUID based one. Perhaps
extending the LSID resolution spec would be more appropriate?<br>
  <br>
Roger<br>
  <br>
  <br>
Renato De Giovanni wrote:
  <blockquote cite="mid...@re..."
 type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Hi John,

Implementing the log request was never a problem. We discussed about 
that again during the Madrid meeting, and only after that a feature 
freeze was suggested. It's true that PyWrapper is being adjusted now 
to conform to the new specs, and considering that DiGIR2 (or wasabi) 
postponed implementation of TAPIR, I suppose it should not be a big 
problem to make additional changes if necessary.

The main problem I had with the log request was that it would 
probably not solve the issue behind it, which is to track usage by 
data aggregators. I still have the same feeling, and I can easily 
imagine situations when it would not be easy or even possible to 
translate searches on top of cached databases to TAPIR requests.

But maybe I'm wrong, and if you all think it's a good feature then we 
can try to include it. However, I do think that providers should be 
able to advertise as the part of capabilities if they want to receive 
log requests or not. 

To me it also sounds like a new operation, especially if it's only 
related to search. It could make sense for view, inventory and 
metadata operations. Maybe capabilities too. But it doesn't make 
sense for ping. Well, maybe it could make sense for ping if the data 
aggregator monitors provider status and accepts similar requests on 
top of its results...

So, yes, it could be a new attribute "logOnly" as part of the 
operationRequestGroup with an answer &lt;/received&gt; (just after the 
response header). And we could add an attribute "acceptLogRequests" 
in the &lt;operations&gt; element in capabilities responses. The other 
option would be to include a new operation, but maybe it's better to 
just have it as an optional attribute for all operations.

Best Regards,
--
Renato

On 19 Jul 2006 at 10:32, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
  </pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">I appreciate that you will consider this request. I always thought
it 
would be trivial to implement. Your simulation mode sounds very much
like what I had in mind. I hadn't thought it necessary to get a 
response from a log request, but if there was a simple response, it
could be used as a ping, or it could be used to retry logging until
the provider did respond. So, something like &lt;log request received&gt;.
I think the addition oflogOnly attribute is a good one, and could 
apply to every request type. 

Javi, I don't disagree that portals SHOULD log the data usage, 
especially to cover the situations where a provider doesn't respond.
I also think that having the information logged at the provider is a
responsible course of action, since they will have immediate access
to the usage statistics that way. It will be much easier for a
portal 
builder to send log requests than it will be to build the 
infrastructure and interfaces to logs, therefore it is more likely
to 
actually get done. 


On 7/18/06, Javier de la Torre <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
 href="mailto:ja...@mn...">&lt;ja...@mn...&gt;</a> wrote: 
    I am not sure about this,
    
    I still think that portals should be gathering this data and
making
    it available for data providers... 
    
    But in any case if you like it then I agree with MArkus that the
best
    is to include another parameter in the operationRequestGroup.
    
    I havent checked but what happens if you do an extension there
with
    an attribute that is implementation specific? A qualified
attribute.
    Will this still validate against our schema? You were
discussing
    about qualification of attributes before no?
    
    Javi.
    
    On 18/07/2006, at 10:41, D&ouml;ring, Markus wrote: 
    
    &gt; John,
    &gt; all changes going on with TAPIR right now are really only
changes
    &gt; in terminology or removing inconsistencies we did not detect
before
    &gt; we started the documentation and final implementation. 
    &gt;
    &gt;
    &gt; But nevertheless I would support your request. Especially from
the
    &gt; implementation side of view this is a trivial change to the
code.
    &gt; So why dont add it? Just some additional thoughts: 
    &gt;
    &gt;
    &gt; - Ive added a "simulation" mode already to my code where no
SQL
    &gt; gets executed but just logged. So you can test
configurations
    &gt; without risking sending off killer statements. Thats similar
to 
    &gt; logOnly I guess, returning nothing but diagnostics. What would
you
    &gt; suggest to be returned for a logOnly request? just the empty
TAPIR
    &gt; envelope? Nothing? &lt;OK&gt;?
    &gt;
    &gt; - would this log-only request not be needed for all requests?
at 
    &gt; least for inventories? So it would be easiest to have a new
logOnly
    &gt; parameter in the header or "request element" just after the
header?
    &gt; something like &lt;search logOnly="true"&gt;
    &gt;
    &gt;
    &gt;
    &gt; -- Markus
    &gt;
    &gt;
    &gt;&gt; -----Urspr&uuml;ngliche Nachricht-----
    &gt;&gt; Von: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
 href="mailto:pyw...@li...">pyw...@li...</a> 
    &gt;&gt; [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
 href="mailto:pyw...@li...">mailto:pyw...@li...</a>] Im
    &gt;&gt; Auftrag von John R. WIECZOREK
    &gt;&gt; Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juli 2006 23:30 
    &gt;&gt; An: Renato De Giovanni
    &gt;&gt; Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
 href="mailto:pyw...@li...">pyw...@li...</a>; tdwg-
    <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
 href="mailto:ta...@li...">ta...@li...</a> 
    &gt;&gt; Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:
    &gt;&gt; capabilities
    &gt;&gt;
    &gt;&gt; A little off topic, but it occurs to me that a great deal
of
    &gt;&gt; work is still ongoing with TAPIR, which suggests to me that
    &gt;&gt; it may be warranted to re-state my request for a simple
    &gt;&gt; message type - a log request. This request would be the
same
    &gt;&gt; as a search request, except that the caller doesn't need a
    &gt;&gt; response. Providers would use this type of request to log 
    &gt;&gt; data usage if the data were retrieved from a cache
elsewhere.
    &gt;&gt; I remember talking about this in Berlin, at which time
there
    &gt;&gt; was supposed to be a feature freeze. Clearly we've gone
    &gt;&gt; beyond that, so I'm requesting it again. 
    &gt;&gt;
    &gt;&gt;
    &gt;&gt; On 7/17/06, Renato De Giovanni <a
 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:re...@cr...">&lt;re...@cr...&gt;</a> wrote:
    &gt;&gt;
    &gt;&gt;Hi,
    &gt;&gt;
    &gt;&gt;If I remember well, the "view" operation was re-included in 
    the 
    &gt;&gt;protocol just to handle query templates, especifically
    &gt;&gt; for TapirLite
    &gt;&gt;providers. So if someone wants to query a provider using
some
    &gt;&gt;external output model that should be dynamically 
    &gt;&gt; parsed, then the
    &gt;&gt;"search" operation must be used instead (using either
    &gt;&gt; XML or simple
    &gt;&gt;GET request). View operations are really bound to query
    &gt;&gt; templates, 
    &gt;&gt;and they are not allowed to specify "filter" or
    &gt;&gt; "partial" parameters.
    &gt;&gt;--
    &gt;&gt;Renato
    &gt;&gt;
    &gt;&gt;On 17 Jul 2006 at 21:26, "D&ouml;ring, Markus" wrote: 
    &gt;&gt;
    &gt;&gt;&gt; I was just about to edit the schema and realizing
    &gt;&gt; that output models
    &gt;&gt;&gt; are only specified for searches. but what about
    &gt;&gt; views? they use
    &gt;&gt;&gt; query templates, yes. but only the ones listed in 
    &gt;&gt; capabilities? we
    &gt;&gt;&gt; should have dynamic ones here as well I think. And
    &gt;&gt; they link back to
    &gt;&gt;&gt; static/dynamic models.
    &gt;&gt;&gt;
    &gt;&gt;&gt; So should models maybe become a seperate section not tight
    to 
    &gt;&gt;&gt; search/view operations? I am going to modify the
    &gt;&gt; schema nevertheless
    &gt;&gt;&gt; already to accomodate the changes below - ignoring
    &gt;&gt; views for now.
    &gt;&gt;&gt;
    &gt;&gt;&gt; Markus
    </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!---->
_______________________________________________
tdwg-tapir mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
 href="mailto:tdw...@li...">tdw...@li...</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
 href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir</a>

  </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <br>
  <br>
  <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 

-------------------------------------
 Roger Hyam
 Technical Architect
 Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.tdwg.org">http://www.tdwg.org</a>
 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ro...@td...">ro...@td...</a>
 +44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------
  </pre>
  <pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
_______________________________________________
tdwg-tapir mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tdw...@li...">tdw...@li...</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir</a>
  </pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

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

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

Logging that a GUID was used isn't sufficient; it doesn't tell how the data
were used. What I'm after is to log the actual query that would have had to
go to the provider to produce the results used. The example in your second
example shouldn't happen, the query should specify a record limit per
provider.

On 7/24/06, Roger Hyam <ro...@td...> wrote:
>
>
> I thought this sounded like a good idea but since reading Renato's messag=
e
> I am now confused.
>
> If a user does a search on a portal and gets 100 results and looks at the
> first 10 does the provider of the 11th record get notified? Their data ha=
s
> been used because it has been given in the count.  Another example would =
be
> if a portal gave a distribution map to 10km squares based in data from
> multiple providers. Each data point is made from several suppliers data a=
nd
> removal of any one supplier's data may not change the map. Do we notify t=
hem
> all?
>
> I could envisage a GUID based system just about. The call to the log
> function would basically say "Some one has accessed the data that I got f=
rom
> you that you tag with this GUID" but I can't see how this would work on a
> search based system. The log call would mean "Some one searched for
> something that made used of data I got from a search I did on you once".
>
> So really the only service we need is a GUID based one. Perhaps extending
> the LSID resolution spec would be more appropriate?
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> Renato De Giovanni wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> Implementing the log request was never a problem. We discussed about
> that again during the Madrid meeting, and only after that a feature
> freeze was suggested. It's true that PyWrapper is being adjusted now
> to conform to the new specs, and considering that DiGIR2 (or wasabi)
> postponed implementation of TAPIR, I suppose it should not be a big
> problem to make additional changes if necessary.
>
> The main problem I had with the log request was that it would
> probably not solve the issue behind it, which is to track usage by
> data aggregators. I still have the same feeling, and I can easily
> imagine situations when it would not be easy or even possible to
> translate searches on top of cached databases to TAPIR requests.
>
> But maybe I'm wrong, and if you all think it's a good feature then we
> can try to include it. However, I do think that providers should be
> able to advertise as the part of capabilities if they want to receive
> log requests or not.
>
> To me it also sounds like a new operation, especially if it's only
> related to search. It could make sense for view, inventory and
> metadata operations. Maybe capabilities too. But it doesn't make
> sense for ping. Well, maybe it could make sense for ping if the data
> aggregator monitors provider status and accepts similar requests on
> top of its results...
>
> So, yes, it could be a new attribute "logOnly" as part of the
> operationRequestGroup with an answer </received> (just after the
> response header). And we could add an attribute "acceptLogRequests"
> in the <operations> element in capabilities responses. The other
> option would be to include a new operation, but maybe it's better to
> just have it as an optional attribute for all operations.
>
> Best Regards,
> --
> Renato
>
> On 19 Jul 2006 at 10:32, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
>
>  I appreciate that you will consider this request. I always thought
> it
> would be trivial to implement. Your simulation mode sounds very much
> like what I had in mind. I hadn't thought it necessary to get a
> response from a log request, but if there was a simple response, it
> could be used as a ping, or it could be used to retry logging until
> the provider did respond. So, something like <log request received>.
> I think the addition oflogOnly attribute is a good one, and could
> apply to every request type.
>
> Javi, I don't disagree that portals SHOULD log the data usage,
> especially to cover the situations where a provider doesn't respond.
> I also think that having the information logged at the provider is a
> responsible course of action, since they will have immediate access
> to the usage statistics that way. It will be much easier for a
> portal
> builder to send log requests than it will be to build the
> infrastructure and interfaces to logs, therefore it is more likely
> to
> actually get done.
>
>
> On 7/18/06, Javier de la Torre <ja...@mn...> <jatorre@mncn.csic.=
es> wrote:
>     I am not sure about this,
>
>     I still think that portals should be gathering this data and
> making
>     it available for data providers...
>
>     But in any case if you like it then I agree with MArkus that the
> best
>     is to include another parameter in the operationRequestGroup.
>
>     I havent checked but what happens if you do an extension there
> with
>     an attribute that is implementation specific? A qualified
> attribute.
>     Will this still validate against our schema? You were
> discussing
>     about qualification of attributes before no?
>
>     Javi.
>
>     On 18/07/2006, at 10:41, D=F6ring, Markus wrote:
>
>     > John,
>     > all changes going on with TAPIR right now are really only
> changes
>     > in terminology or removing inconsistencies we did not detect
> before
>     > we started the documentation and final implementation.
>     >
>     >
>     > But nevertheless I would support your request. Especially from
> the
>     > implementation side of view this is a trivial change to the
> code.
>     > So why dont add it? Just some additional thoughts:
>     >
>     >
>     > - Ive added a "simulation" mode already to my code where no
> SQL
>     > gets executed but just logged. So you can test
> configurations
>     > without risking sending off killer statements. Thats similar
> to
>     > logOnly I guess, returning nothing but diagnostics. What would
> you
>     > suggest to be returned for a logOnly request? just the empty
> TAPIR
>     > envelope? Nothing? <OK>?
>     >
>     > - would this log-only request not be needed for all requests?
> at
>     > least for inventories? So it would be easiest to have a new
> logOnly
>     > parameter in the header or "request element" just after the
> header?
>     > something like <search logOnly=3D"true">
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > -- Markus
>     >
>     >
>     >> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
>     >> Von: pyw...@li...
>     >> [mailto:pyw...@li... <pywrapper-d=
eve...@li...>] Im
>     >> Auftrag von John R. WIECZOREK
>     >> Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juli 2006 23:30
>     >> An: Renato De Giovanni
>     >> Cc: pyw...@li...; tdwg-
>     ta...@li...
>     >> Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:
>     >> capabilities
>     >>
>     >> 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 in 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...> <renato@cria.o=
rg.br> 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-tapi=
r
>
>
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------
>  Roger Hyam
>  Technical Architect
>  Taxonomic Databases Working Group
> -------------------------------------
>  http://www.tdwg.org
>  ro...@td...
>  +44 1578 722782
> -------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdw...@li...
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
>
>
>

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

[<m.d...@BG...>]

I agree that logging via GUID doesnt help in many cases where the =
provider wants to know what was searched for.

But searching on a portal-cache to find data from 20 different providers =
in 1 search and then sending of 20 log requests could also be annoying. =
Plus the burden of the portal of checking the registry if a providers =
really wants logging.

The most efficient is probably a portal specific logging as Donald =
suggests. But then providers would have a hard time agglomerating the =
logging data from several totaly different portals.

To get a comparable logging across different portals though it seems to =
me that Renatos suggestions are worth a try. It would definitely need =
guidlines for portal developers to know when to use a log request and =
how to use it. How to treat paging and map data are good examples where =
there is no obvious correct behaviour.


-- Markus
 =20

> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: tdw...@li...=20
> [mailto:tdw...@li...] Im Auftrag von=20
> John R. WIECZOREK
> Gesendet: Montag, 24. Juli 2006 18:28
> An: ro...@td...
> Cc: PyWrapper Developers mailing list; tdw...@li...
> Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:=20
> capabilities
>=20
> Logging that a GUID was used isn't sufficient; it doesn't=20
> tell how the data were used. What I'm after is to log the=20
> actual query that would have had to go to the provider to=20
> produce the results used. The example in your second example=20
> shouldn't happen, the query should specify a record limit per=20
> provider.
>=20
>=20
> On 7/24/06, Roger Hyam <ro...@td...> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> 	I thought this sounded like a good idea but since=20
> reading Renato's message I am now confused.
> =09
> 	If a user does a search on a portal and gets 100=20
> results and looks at the first 10 does the provider of the=20
> 11th record get notified? Their data has been used because it=20
> has been given in the count.  Another example would be if a=20
> portal gave a distribution map to 10km squares based in data=20
> from multiple providers. Each data point is made from several=20
> suppliers data and removal of any one supplier's data may not=20
> change the map. Do we notify them all?
> =09
> 	I could envisage a GUID based system just about. The=20
> call to the log function would basically say "Some one has=20
> accessed the data that I got from you that you tag with this=20
> GUID" but I can't see how this would work on a search based=20
> system. The log call would mean "Some one searched for=20
> something that made used of data I got from a search I did on=20
> you once".
> =09
> 	So really the only service we need is a GUID based one.=20
> Perhaps extending the LSID resolution spec would be more appropriate?
> =09
> 	Roger
> =09
> =09
> =09
> 	Renato De Giovanni wrote:=20
>=20
> 		Hi John,
> 	=09
> 		Implementing the log request was never a=20
> problem. We discussed about=20
> 		that again during the Madrid meeting, and only=20
> after that a feature=20
> 		freeze was suggested. It's true that PyWrapper=20
> is being adjusted now=20
> 	=09
> 		to conform to the new specs, and considering=20
> that DiGIR2 (or wasabi)=20
> 		postponed implementation of TAPIR, I suppose it=20
> should not be a big=20
> 		problem to make additional changes if necessary.
> 	=09
> 		The main problem I had with the log request was=20
> that it would=20
> 	=09
> 		probably not solve the issue behind it, which=20
> is to track usage by=20
> 		data aggregators. I still have the same=20
> feeling, and I can easily=20
> 		imagine situations when it would not be easy or=20
> even possible to=20
> 		translate searches on top of cached databases=20
> to TAPIR requests.
> 	=09
> 	=09
> 		But maybe I'm wrong, and if you all think it's=20
> a good feature then we=20
> 		can try to include it. However, I do think that=20
> providers should be=20
> 		able to advertise as the part of capabilities=20
> if they want to receive=20
> 	=09
> 		log requests or not.=20
> 	=09
> 		To me it also sounds like a new operation,=20
> especially if it's only=20
> 		related to search. It could make sense for=20
> view, inventory and=20
> 		metadata operations. Maybe capabilities too.=20
> But it doesn't make=20
> 	=09
> 		sense for ping. Well, maybe it could make sense=20
> for ping if the data=20
> 		aggregator monitors provider status and accepts=20
> similar requests on=20
> 		top of its results...
> 	=09
> 		So, yes, it could be a new attribute "logOnly"=20
> as part of the=20
> 	=09
> 		operationRequestGroup with an answer=20
> </received> (just after the=20
> 		response header). And we could add an attribute=20
> "acceptLogRequests"=20
> 		in the <operations> element in capabilities=20
> responses. The other=20
> 	=09
> 		option would be to include a new operation, but=20
> maybe it's better to=20
> 		just have it as an optional attribute for all=20
> operations.
> 	=09
> 		Best Regards,
> 		--
> 		Renato
> 	=09
> 		On 19 Jul 2006 at 10:32, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
> 	=09
> 		 =20
>=20
> 			I appreciate that you will consider=20
> this request. I always thought
> 			it=20
> 			would be trivial to implement. Your=20
> simulation mode sounds very much
> 			like what I had in mind. I hadn't=20
> thought it necessary to get a=20
> 		=09
> 			response from a log request, but if=20
> there was a simple response, it
> 			could be used as a ping, or it could be=20
> used to retry logging until
> 			the provider did respond. So, something=20
> like <log request received>.
> 		=09
> 			I think the addition oflogOnly=20
> attribute is a good one, and could=20
> 			apply to every request type.=20
> 		=09
> 			Javi, I don't disagree that portals=20
> SHOULD log the data usage,=20
> 			especially to cover the situations=20
> where a provider doesn't respond.
> 		=09
> 			I also think that having the=20
> information logged at the provider is a
> 			responsible course of action, since=20
> they will have immediate access
> 			to the usage statistics that way. It=20
> will be much easier for a
> 			portal=20
> 		=09
> 			builder to send log requests than it=20
> will be to build the=20
> 			infrastructure and interfaces to logs,=20
> therefore it is more likely
> 			to=20
> 			actually get done.=20
> 		=09
> 		=09
> 			On 7/18/06, Javier de la Torre=20
> 			<ja...@mn...>=20
> <mailto:ja...@mn...>  wrote:=20
> 			    I am not sure about this,
> 			   =20
> 			    I still think that portals should=20
> be gathering this data and
> 			making
> 			    it available for data providers...=20
> 			   =20
> 			    But in any case if you like it then=20
> I agree with MArkus that the
> 		=09
> 			best
> 			    is to include another parameter in=20
> the operationRequestGroup.
> 			   =20
> 			    I havent checked but what happens=20
> if you do an extension there
> 			with
> 			    an attribute that is implementation=20
> specific? A qualified
> 		=09
> 			attribute.
> 			    Will this still validate against=20
> our schema? You were
> 			discussing
> 			    about qualification of attributes before no?
> 			   =20
> 			    Javi.
> 			   =20
> 			    On 18/07/2006, at 10:41, D=F6ring,=20
> Markus wrote:=20
> 		=09
> 			   =20
> 			    > John,
> 			    > all changes going on with TAPIR=20
> right now are really only
> 			changes
> 			    > in terminology or removing=20
> inconsistencies we did not detect
> 			before
> 			    > we started the documentation and=20
> final implementation.=20
> 		=09
> 			    >
> 			    >
> 			    > But nevertheless I would support=20
> your request. Especially from
> 			the
> 			    > implementation side of view this=20
> is a trivial change to the
> 			code.
> 			    > So why dont add it? Just some=20
> additional thoughts:=20
> 		=09
> 			    >
> 			    >
> 			    > - Ive added a "simulation" mode=20
> already to my code where no
> 			SQL
> 			    > gets executed but just logged. So=20
> you can test
> 			configurations
> 			    > without risking sending off=20
> killer statements. Thats similar
> 		=09
> 			to=20
> 			    > logOnly I guess, returning=20
> nothing but diagnostics. What would
> 			you
> 			    > suggest to be returned for a=20
> logOnly request? just the empty
> 			TAPIR
> 			    > envelope? Nothing? <OK>?
> 			    >
> 		=09
> 			    > - would this log-only request not=20
> be needed for all requests?
> 			at=20
> 			    > least for inventories? So it=20
> would be easiest to have a new
> 			logOnly
> 			    > parameter in the header or=20
> "request element" just after the
> 		=09
> 			header?
> 			    > something like <search logOnly=3D"true">
> 			    >
> 			    >
> 			    >
> 			    > -- Markus
> 			    >
> 			    >
> 			    >> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> 			    >> Von:=20
> 			pyw...@li...
> 			=20
> 			    >>=20
> [mailto:pyw...@li...
> 			] Im
> 			    >> Auftrag von John R. WIECZOREK
> 			    >> Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juli 2006 23:30=20
> 			    >> An: Renato De Giovanni
> 			    >> Cc:=20
> 			pyw...@li...=20
> <mailto:pyw...@li...> ; tdwg-
> 			    ta...@li...
> 			=20
> 			    >> Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel]=20
> [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:
> 			    >> capabilities
> 			    >>
> 			    >> A little off topic, but it=20
> occurs to me that a great deal
> 			of
> 			    >> work is still ongoing with=20
> TAPIR, which suggests to me that
> 		=09
> 			    >> it may be warranted to re-state=20
> my request for a simple
> 			    >> message type - a log request.=20
> This request would be the
> 			same
> 			    >> as a search request, except that=20
> the caller doesn't need a
> 		=09
> 			    >> response. Providers would use=20
> this type of request to log=20
> 			    >> data usage if the data were=20
> retrieved from a cache
> 			elsewhere.
> 			    >> I remember talking about this in=20
> Berlin, at which time
> 		=09
> 			there
> 			    >> was supposed to be a feature=20
> freeze. Clearly we've gone
> 			    >> beyond that, so I'm requesting it again.=20
> 			    >>
> 			    >>
> 			    >> On 7/17/06, Renato De Giovanni=20
> 			<re...@cr...>=20
> <mailto:re...@cr...>  wrote:
> 			    >>
> 			    >>Hi,
> 			    >>
> 			    >>If I remember well, the "view"=20
> operation was re-included in=20
> 			    the=20
> 			    >>protocol just to handle query=20
> templates, especifically
> 		=09
> 			    >> for TapirLite
> 			    >>providers. So if someone wants to=20
> query a provider using
> 			some
> 			    >>external output model that should=20
> be dynamically=20
> 			    >> parsed, then the
> 			    >>"search" operation must be used=20
> instead (using either
> 		=09
> 			    >> XML or simple
> 			    >>GET request). View operations are=20
> really bound to query
> 			    >> templates,=20
> 			    >>and they are not allowed to=20
> specify "filter" or
> 			    >> "partial" parameters.
> 		=09
> 			    >>--
> 			    >>Renato
> 			    >>
> 			    >>On 17 Jul 2006 at 21:26, "D=F6ring,=20
> Markus" wrote:=20
> 			    >>
> 			    >>> I was just about to edit the=20
> schema and realizing
> 		=09
> 			    >> that output models
> 			    >>> are only specified for=20
> searches. but what about
> 			    >> views? they use
> 			    >>> query templates, yes. but only=20
> the ones listed in=20
> 			    >> capabilities? we
> 		=09
> 			    >>> should have dynamic ones here=20
> as well I think. And
> 			    >> they link back to
> 			    >>> static/dynamic models.
> 			    >>>
> 			    >>> So should models maybe become a=20
> seperate section not tight
> 		=09
> 			    to=20
> 			    >>> search/view operations? I am=20
> going to modify the
> 			    >> schema nevertheless
> 			    >>> already to accomodate the=20
> changes below - ignoring
> 			    >> views for now.
> 		=09
> 			    >>>
> 			    >>> Markus
> 			   =20
>=20
> 		_______________________________________________
> 		tdwg-tapir mailing list
> 	=09
> 		tdw...@li...=20
> <mailto:tdw...@li...>=20
> 		http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
> 	=09
> 	=09
> 		 =20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 	--=20
> =09
> 	-------------------------------------
> 	 Roger Hyam
> 	 Technical Architect
> 	 Taxonomic Databases Working Group
> 	-------------------------------------
> 	=20
> 	http://www.tdwg.org <http://www.tdwg.org>=20
> 	 ro...@td...
> 	 +44 1578 722782
> 	-------------------------------------
>=20
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	tdwg-tapir mailing list
> 	tdw...@li...
> 	http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir=20
> <http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir>=20
> =09
> =09
> =09
>=20
>=20
>=20

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

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

Why make this so hard? We're talking about a portal sending out one message
to n providers and not having to wait for a response. Right now we would
have to send out a message and wait for all of the responses (up to a
timeout). This is a net improvement.

Why do we need metadata from providers to know if they want logging
requests? We don't ask them if they want metadata requests, or how often.
Just send the requests. If they want to log them, they will configure their
provider to do so. Otherwise the provider will ignore them.

In the meantime, always log on the portal side. Not only will that give
providers with flakey connections a place to see usage statistics, but it
will also generate information will be interesting on its own - summary
information about how the portal is used that you wouldn't get from the
providers.

To me, this usage business is important enough that I would even go so far
as to certify portals as being in compliance with meeting this social
contract. That way a provider could release access to certified portals and
disallow access for those who don't abide by the contract. Remember, the
semblance of control is really important to a lot of our providers. If you
don't think so, have someone do a survey of existing providers to see if
they would want it or not. It would be a sample biased against needing
logging (since they are already doing without). If that survey turned up
interest in logging anyway, then it's worth doing. My feeling is that it is
so easy to implement (if you don't try to get unnecessarily fancy) that it
should just be done - it would be easier than conducting a survey about it.

On 7/25/06, "D=F6ring, Markus" <m.d...@bg...> wrote:
>
> I agree that logging via GUID doesnt help in many cases where the provide=
r
> wants to know what was searched for.
>
> But searching on a portal-cache to find data from 20 different providers
> in 1 search and then sending of 20 log requests could also be annoying. P=
lus
> the burden of the portal of checking the registry if a providers really
> wants logging.
>
> The most efficient is probably a portal specific logging as Donald
> suggests. But then providers would have a hard time agglomerating the
> logging data from several totaly different portals.
>
> To get a comparable logging across different portals though it seems to m=
e
> that Renatos suggestions are worth a try. It would definitely need guidli=
nes
> for portal developers to know when to use a log request and how to use it=
.
> How to treat paging and map data are good examples where there is no obvi=
ous
> correct behaviour.
>
>
> -- Markus
>
>
> > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: tdw...@li...
> > [mailto:tdw...@li...] Im Auftrag von
> > John R. WIECZOREK
> > Gesendet: Montag, 24. Juli 2006 18:28
> > An: ro...@td...
> > Cc: PyWrapper Developers mailing list; tdw...@li...
> > Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:
> > capabilities
> >
> > Logging that a GUID was used isn't sufficient; it doesn't
> > tell how the data were used. What I'm after is to log the
> > actual query that would have had to go to the provider to
> > produce the results used. The example in your second example
> > shouldn't happen, the query should specify a record limit per
> > provider.
> >
> >
> > On 7/24/06, Roger Hyam <ro...@td...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >       I thought this sounded like a good idea but since
> > reading Renato's message I am now confused.
> >
> >       If a user does a search on a portal and gets 100
> > results and looks at the first 10 does the provider of the
> > 11th record get notified? Their data has been used because it
> > has been given in the count.  Another example would be if a
> > portal gave a distribution map to 10km squares based in data
> > from multiple providers. Each data point is made from several
> > suppliers data and removal of any one supplier's data may not
> > change the map. Do we notify them all?
> >
> >       I could envisage a GUID based system just about. The
> > call to the log function would basically say "Some one has
> > accessed the data that I got from you that you tag with this
> > GUID" but I can't see how this would work on a search based
> > system. The log call would mean "Some one searched for
> > something that made used of data I got from a search I did on
> > you once".
> >
> >       So really the only service we need is a GUID based one.
> > Perhaps extending the LSID resolution spec would be more appropriate?
> >
> >       Roger
> >
> >
> >
> >       Renato De Giovanni wrote:
> >
> >               Hi John,
> >
> >               Implementing the log request was never a
> > problem. We discussed about
> >               that again during the Madrid meeting, and only
> > after that a feature
> >               freeze was suggested. It's true that PyWrapper
> > is being adjusted now
> >
> >               to conform to the new specs, and considering
> > that DiGIR2 (or wasabi)
> >               postponed implementation of TAPIR, I suppose it
> > should not be a big
> >               problem to make additional changes if necessary.
> >
> >               The main problem I had with the log request was
> > that it would
> >
> >               probably not solve the issue behind it, which
> > is to track usage by
> >               data aggregators. I still have the same
> > feeling, and I can easily
> >               imagine situations when it would not be easy or
> > even possible to
> >               translate searches on top of cached databases
> > to TAPIR requests.
> >
> >
> >               But maybe I'm wrong, and if you all think it's
> > a good feature then we
> >               can try to include it. However, I do think that
> > providers should be
> >               able to advertise as the part of capabilities
> > if they want to receive
> >
> >               log requests or not.
> >
> >               To me it also sounds like a new operation,
> > especially if it's only
> >               related to search. It could make sense for
> > view, inventory and
> >               metadata operations. Maybe capabilities too.
> > But it doesn't make
> >
> >               sense for ping. Well, maybe it could make sense
> > for ping if the data
> >               aggregator monitors provider status and accepts
> > similar requests on
> >               top of its results...
> >
> >               So, yes, it could be a new attribute "logOnly"
> > as part of the
> >
> >               operationRequestGroup with an answer
> > </received> (just after the
> >               response header). And we could add an attribute
> > "acceptLogRequests"
> >               in the <operations> element in capabilities
> > responses. The other
> >
> >               option would be to include a new operation, but
> > maybe it's better to
> >               just have it as an optional attribute for all
> > operations.
> >
> >               Best Regards,
> >               --
> >               Renato
> >
> >               On 19 Jul 2006 at 10:32, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >                       I appreciate that you will consider
> > this request. I always thought
> >                       it
> >                       would be trivial to implement. Your
> > simulation mode sounds very much
> >                       like what I had in mind. I hadn't
> > thought it necessary to get a
> >
> >                       response from a log request, but if
> > there was a simple response, it
> >                       could be used as a ping, or it could be
> > used to retry logging until
> >                       the provider did respond. So, something
> > like <log request received>.
> >
> >                       I think the addition oflogOnly
> > attribute is a good one, and could
> >                       apply to every request type.
> >
> >                       Javi, I don't disagree that portals
> > SHOULD log the data usage,
> >                       especially to cover the situations
> > where a provider doesn't respond.
> >
> >                       I also think that having the
> > information logged at the provider is a
> >                       responsible course of action, since
> > they will have immediate access
> >                       to the usage statistics that way. It
> > will be much easier for a
> >                       portal
> >
> >                       builder to send log requests than it
> > will be to build the
> >                       infrastructure and interfaces to logs,
> > therefore it is more likely
> >                       to
> >                       actually get done.
> >
> >
> >                       On 7/18/06, Javier de la Torre
> >                       <ja...@mn...>
> > <mailto:ja...@mn...>  wrote:
> >                           I am not sure about this,
> >
> >                           I still think that portals should
> > be gathering this data and
> >                       making
> >                           it available for data providers...
> >
> >                           But in any case if you like it then
> > I agree with MArkus that the
> >
> >                       best
> >                           is to include another parameter in
> > the operationRequestGroup.
> >
> >                           I havent checked but what happens
> > if you do an extension there
> >                       with
> >                           an attribute that is implementation
> > specific? A qualified
> >
> >                       attribute.
> >                           Will this still validate against
> > our schema? You were
> >                       discussing
> >                           about qualification of attributes before no?
> >
> >                           Javi.
> >
> >                           On 18/07/2006, at 10:41, D=F6ring,
> > Markus wrote:
> >
> >
> >                           > John,
> >                           > all changes going on with TAPIR
> > right now are really only
> >                       changes
> >                           > in terminology or removing
> > inconsistencies we did not detect
> >                       before
> >                           > we started the documentation and
> > final implementation.
> >
> >                           >
> >                           >
> >                           > But nevertheless I would support
> > your request. Especially from
> >                       the
> >                           > implementation side of view this
> > is a trivial change to the
> >                       code.
> >                           > So why dont add it? Just some
> > additional thoughts:
> >
> >                           >
> >                           >
> >                           > - Ive added a "simulation" mode
> > already to my code where no
> >                       SQL
> >                           > gets executed but just logged. So
> > you can test
> >                       configurations
> >                           > without risking sending off
> > killer statements. Thats similar
> >
> >                       to
> >                           > logOnly I guess, returning
> > nothing but diagnostics. What would
> >                       you
> >                           > suggest to be returned for a
> > logOnly request? just the empty
> >                       TAPIR
> >                           > envelope? Nothing? <OK>?
> >                           >
> >
> >                           > - would this log-only request not
> > be needed for all requests?
> >                       at
> >                           > least for inventories? So it
> > would be easiest to have a new
> >                       logOnly
> >                           > parameter in the header or
> > "request element" just after the
> >
> >                       header?
> >                           > something like <search logOnly=3D"true">
> >                           >
> >                           >
> >                           >
> >                           > -- Markus
> >                           >
> >                           >
> >                           >> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> >                           >> Von:
> >                       pyw...@li...
> >
> >                           >>
> > [mailto:pyw...@li...
> >                       ] Im
> >                           >> Auftrag von John R. WIECZOREK
> >                           >> Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juli 2006 23:30
> >                           >> An: Renato De Giovanni
> >                           >> Cc:
> >                       pyw...@li...
> > <mailto:pyw...@li...> ; tdwg-
> >                           ta...@li...
> >
> >                           >> Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel]
> > [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:
> >                           >> capabilities
> >                           >>
> >                           >> 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 in
> > 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...>
> > <mailto: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...
> > <mailto:tdw...@li...>
> >               http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >       --
> >
> >       -------------------------------------
> >        Roger Hyam
> >        Technical Architect
> >        Taxonomic Databases Working Group
> >       -------------------------------------
> >
> >       http://www.tdwg.org <http://www.tdwg.org>
> >        ro...@td...
> >        +44 1578 722782
> >       -------------------------------------
> >
> >       _______________________________________________
> >       tdwg-tapir mailing list
> >       tdw...@li...
> >       http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
> > <http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdw...@li...
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
>

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

[<m.d...@BG...>]

I have implemented the log-only request now and would like to suggest =
the following:

1) add "log-only" attribute to responeOperationGroup. Ive chosen =
"log-only" cause we already have there an attribute "apply-xslt"
2) add a mandatory boolean attribute "logRequestsDenied" to the =
operation element in a capabilities request
3) use existing responses for the log-only request. So if you do a =
search with log-only active, you will get an empty search response back. =
Thats much easier to implement and doesnt require any change in the =
schema. The same works with inventories. Pong, Capa & Meta responses =
dont cost much anyway, so we could do a normal response (if anyway uses =
log-only with those requests at all)


Does everyone agree to this?
The schema is already updated for this.


Markus



-----Original Message-----
From:	pyw...@li... on behalf of John R. =
WIECZOREK
Sent:	Tue 7/25/2006 5:29 PM
To:	D=F6ring, Markus
Cc:	PyWrapper Developers mailing list; ro...@td...; =
tdw...@li...
Subject:	Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir: capabilities

Why make this so hard? We're talking about a portal sending out one =
message
to n providers and not having to wait for a response. Right now we would
have to send out a message and wait for all of the responses (up to a
timeout). This is a net improvement.

Why do we need metadata from providers to know if they want logging
requests? We don't ask them if they want metadata requests, or how =
often.
Just send the requests. If they want to log them, they will configure =
their
provider to do so. Otherwise the provider will ignore them.

In the meantime, always log on the portal side. Not only will that give
providers with flakey connections a place to see usage statistics, but =
it
will also generate information will be interesting on its own - summary
information about how the portal is used that you wouldn't get from the
providers.

To me, this usage business is important enough that I would even go so =
far
as to certify portals as being in compliance with meeting this social
contract. That way a provider could release access to certified portals =
and
disallow access for those who don't abide by the contract. Remember, the
semblance of control is really important to a lot of our providers. If =
you
don't think so, have someone do a survey of existing providers to see if
they would want it or not. It would be a sample biased against needing
logging (since they are already doing without). If that survey turned up
interest in logging anyway, then it's worth doing. My feeling is that it =
is
so easy to implement (if you don't try to get unnecessarily fancy) that =
it
should just be done - it would be easier than conducting a survey about =
it.

On 7/25/06, "D=F6ring, Markus" <m.d...@bg...> wrote:
>
> I agree that logging via GUID doesnt help in many cases where the =
provider
> wants to know what was searched for.
>
> But searching on a portal-cache to find data from 20 different =
providers
> in 1 search and then sending of 20 log requests could also be =
annoying. Plus
> the burden of the portal of checking the registry if a providers =
really
> wants logging.
>
> The most efficient is probably a portal specific logging as Donald
> suggests. But then providers would have a hard time agglomerating the
> logging data from several totaly different portals.
>
> To get a comparable logging across different portals though it seems =
to me
> that Renatos suggestions are worth a try. It would definitely need =
guidlines
> for portal developers to know when to use a log request and how to use =
it.
> How to treat paging and map data are good examples where there is no =
obvious
> correct behaviour.
>
>
> -- Markus
>
>
> > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: tdw...@li...
> > [mailto:tdw...@li...] Im Auftrag von
> > John R. WIECZOREK
> > Gesendet: Montag, 24. Juli 2006 18:28
> > An: ro...@td...
> > Cc: PyWrapper Developers mailing list; tdw...@li...
> > Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:
> > capabilities
> >
> > Logging that a GUID was used isn't sufficient; it doesn't
> > tell how the data were used. What I'm after is to log the
> > actual query that would have had to go to the provider to
> > produce the results used. The example in your second example
> > shouldn't happen, the query should specify a record limit per
> > provider.
> >
> >
> > On 7/24/06, Roger Hyam <ro...@td...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >       I thought this sounded like a good idea but since
> > reading Renato's message I am now confused.
> >
> >       If a user does a search on a portal and gets 100
> > results and looks at the first 10 does the provider of the
> > 11th record get notified? Their data has been used because it
> > has been given in the count.  Another example would be if a
> > portal gave a distribution map to 10km squares based in data
> > from multiple providers. Each data point is made from several
> > suppliers data and removal of any one supplier's data may not
> > change the map. Do we notify them all?
> >
> >       I could envisage a GUID based system just about. The
> > call to the log function would basically say "Some one has
> > accessed the data that I got from you that you tag with this
> > GUID" but I can't see how this would work on a search based
> > system. The log call would mean "Some one searched for
> > something that made used of data I got from a search I did on
> > you once".
> >
> >       So really the only service we need is a GUID based one.
> > Perhaps extending the LSID resolution spec would be more =
appropriate?
> >
> >       Roger
> >
> >
> >
> >       Renato De Giovanni wrote:
> >
> >               Hi John,
> >
> >               Implementing the log request was never a
> > problem. We discussed about
> >               that again during the Madrid meeting, and only
> > after that a feature
> >               freeze was suggested. It's true that PyWrapper
> > is being adjusted now
> >
> >               to conform to the new specs, and considering
> > that DiGIR2 (or wasabi)
> >               postponed implementation of TAPIR, I suppose it
> > should not be a big
> >               problem to make additional changes if necessary.
> >
> >               The main problem I had with the log request was
> > that it would
> >
> >               probably not solve the issue behind it, which
> > is to track usage by
> >               data aggregators. I still have the same
> > feeling, and I can easily
> >               imagine situations when it would not be easy or
> > even possible to
> >               translate searches on top of cached databases
> > to TAPIR requests.
> >
> >
> >               But maybe I'm wrong, and if you all think it's
> > a good feature then we
> >               can try to include it. However, I do think that
> > providers should be
> >               able to advertise as the part of capabilities
> > if they want to receive
> >
> >               log requests or not.
> >
> >               To me it also sounds like a new operation,
> > especially if it's only
> >               related to search. It could make sense for
> > view, inventory and
> >               metadata operations. Maybe capabilities too.
> > But it doesn't make
> >
> >               sense for ping. Well, maybe it could make sense
> > for ping if the data
> >               aggregator monitors provider status and accepts
> > similar requests on
> >               top of its results...
> >
> >               So, yes, it could be a new attribute "logOnly"
> > as part of the
> >
> >               operationRequestGroup with an answer
> > </received> (just after the
> >               response header). And we could add an attribute
> > "acceptLogRequests"
> >               in the <operations> element in capabilities
> > responses. The other
> >
> >               option would be to include a new operation, but
> > maybe it's better to
> >               just have it as an optional attribute for all
> > operations.
> >
> >               Best Regards,
> >               --
> >               Renato
> >
> >               On 19 Jul 2006 at 10:32, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >                       I appreciate that you will consider
> > this request. I always thought
> >                       it
> >                       would be trivial to implement. Your
> > simulation mode sounds very much
> >                       like what I had in mind. I hadn't
> > thought it necessary to get a
> >
> >                       response from a log request, but if
> > there was a simple response, it
> >                       could be used as a ping, or it could be
> > used to retry logging until
> >                       the provider did respond. So, something
> > like <log request received>.
> >
> >                       I think the addition oflogOnly
> > attribute is a good one, and could
> >                       apply to every request type.
> >
> >                       Javi, I don't disagree that portals
> > SHOULD log the data usage,
> >                       especially to cover the situations
> > where a provider doesn't respond.
> >
> >                       I also think that having the
> > information logged at the provider is a
> >                       responsible course of action, since
> > they will have immediate access
> >                       to the usage statistics that way. It
> > will be much easier for a
> >                       portal
> >
> >                       builder to send log requests than it
> > will be to build the
> >                       infrastructure and interfaces to logs,
> > therefore it is more likely
> >                       to
> >                       actually get done.
> >
> >
> >                       On 7/18/06, Javier de la Torre
> >                       <ja...@mn...>
> > <mailto:ja...@mn...>  wrote:
> >                           I am not sure about this,
> >
> >                           I still think that portals should
> > be gathering this data and
> >                       making
> >                           it available for data providers...
> >
> >                           But in any case if you like it then
> > I agree with MArkus that the
> >
> >                       best
> >                           is to include another parameter in
> > the operationRequestGroup.
> >
> >                           I havent checked but what happens
> > if you do an extension there
> >                       with
> >                           an attribute that is implementation
> > specific? A qualified
> >
> >                       attribute.
> >                           Will this still validate against
> > our schema? You were
> >                       discussing
> >                           about qualification of attributes before =
no?
> >
> >                           Javi.
> >
> >                           On 18/07/2006, at 10:41, D=F6ring,
> > Markus wrote:
> >
> >
> >                           > John,
> >                           > all changes going on with TAPIR
> > right now are really only
> >                       changes
> >                           > in terminology or removing
> > inconsistencies we did not detect
> >                       before
> >                           > we started the documentation and
> > final implementation.
> >
> >                           >
> >                           >
> >                           > But nevertheless I would support
> > your request. Especially from
> >                       the
> >                           > implementation side of view this
> > is a trivial change to the
> >                       code.
> >                           > So why dont add it? Just some
> > additional thoughts:
> >
> >                           >
> >                           >
> >                           > - Ive added a "simulation" mode
> > already to my code where no
> >                       SQL
> >                           > gets executed but just logged. So
> > you can test
> >                       configurations
> >                           > without risking sending off
> > killer statements. Thats similar
> >
> >                       to
> >                           > logOnly I guess, returning
> > nothing but diagnostics. What would
> >                       you
> >                           > suggest to be returned for a
> > logOnly request? just the empty
> >                       TAPIR
> >                           > envelope? Nothing? <OK>?
> >                           >
> >
> >                           > - would this log-only request not
> > be needed for all requests?
> >                       at
> >                           > least for inventories? So it
> > would be easiest to have a new
> >                       logOnly
> >                           > parameter in the header or
> > "request element" just after the
> >
> >                       header?
> >                           > something like <search logOnly=3D"true">
> >                           >
> >                           >
> >                           >
> >                           > -- Markus
> >                           >
> >                           >
> >                           >> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> >                           >> Von:
> >                       pyw...@li...
> >
> >                           >>
> > [mailto:pyw...@li...
> >                       ] Im
> >                           >> Auftrag von John R. WIECZOREK
> >                           >> Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juli 2006 23:30
> >                           >> An: Renato De Giovanni
> >                           >> Cc:
> >                       pyw...@li...
> > <mailto:pyw...@li...> ; tdwg-
> >                           ta...@li...
> >
> >                           >> Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel]
> > [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:
> >                           >> capabilities
> >                           >>
> >                           >> 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 in
> > 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...>
> > <mailto: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...
> > <mailto:tdw...@li...>
> >               http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >       --
> >
> >       -------------------------------------
> >        Roger Hyam
> >        Technical Architect
> >        Taxonomic Databases Working Group
> >       -------------------------------------
> >
> >       http://www.tdwg.org <http://www.tdwg.org>
> >        ro...@td...
> >        +44 1578 722782
> >       -------------------------------------
> >
> >       _______________________________________________
> >       tdwg-tapir mailing list
> >       tdw...@li...
> >       http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
> > <http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdw...@li...
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
>

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

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

That looks great to me. Thanks for your consideration of this request.

On 7/27/06, "D=F6ring, Markus" <m.d...@bg...> wrote:
>
> I have implemented the log-only request now and would like to suggest the
> following:
>
> 1) add "log-only" attribute to responeOperationGroup. Ive chosen
> "log-only" cause we already have there an attribute "apply-xslt"
> 2) add a mandatory boolean attribute "logRequestsDenied" to the operation
> element in a capabilities request
> 3) use existing responses for the log-only request. So if you do a search
> with log-only active, you will get an empty search response back. Thats m=
uch
> easier to implement and doesnt require any change in the schema. The same
> works with inventories. Pong, Capa & Meta responses dont cost much anyway=
,
> so we could do a normal response (if anyway uses log-only with those
> requests at all)
>
>
> Does everyone agree to this?
> The schema is already updated for this.
>
>
> Markus
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   pyw...@li... on behalf of John R=
.
> WIECZOREK
> Sent:   Tue 7/25/2006 5:29 PM
> To:     D=F6ring, Markus
> Cc:     PyWrapper Developers mailing list; ro...@td...;
> tdw...@li...
> Subject:        Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:
> capabilities
>
> Why make this so hard? We're talking about a portal sending out one
> message
> to n providers and not having to wait for a response. Right now we would
> have to send out a message and wait for all of the responses (up to a
> timeout). This is a net improvement.
>
> Why do we need metadata from providers to know if they want logging
> requests? We don't ask them if they want metadata requests, or how often.
> Just send the requests. If they want to log them, they will configure
> their
> provider to do so. Otherwise the provider will ignore them.
>
> In the meantime, always log on the portal side. Not only will that give
> providers with flakey connections a place to see usage statistics, but it
> will also generate information will be interesting on its own - summary
> information about how the portal is used that you wouldn't get from the
> providers.
>
> To me, this usage business is important enough that I would even go so fa=
r
> as to certify portals as being in compliance with meeting this social
> contract. That way a provider could release access to certified portals
> and
> disallow access for those who don't abide by the contract. Remember, the
> semblance of control is really important to a lot of our providers. If yo=
u
> don't think so, have someone do a survey of existing providers to see if
> they would want it or not. It would be a sample biased against needing
> logging (since they are already doing without). If that survey turned up
> interest in logging anyway, then it's worth doing. My feeling is that it
> is
> so easy to implement (if you don't try to get unnecessarily fancy) that i=
t
> should just be done - it would be easier than conducting a survey about
> it.
>
> On 7/25/06, "D=F6ring, Markus" <m.d...@bg...> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that logging via GUID doesnt help in many cases where the
> provider
> > wants to know what was searched for.
> >
> > But searching on a portal-cache to find data from 20 different provider=
s
> > in 1 search and then sending of 20 log requests could also be annoying.
> Plus
> > the burden of the portal of checking the registry if a providers really
> > wants logging.
> >
> > The most efficient is probably a portal specific logging as Donald
> > suggests. But then providers would have a hard time agglomerating the
> > logging data from several totaly different portals.
> >
> > To get a comparable logging across different portals though it seems to
> me
> > that Renatos suggestions are worth a try. It would definitely need
> guidlines
> > for portal developers to know when to use a log request and how to use
> it.
> > How to treat paging and map data are good examples where there is no
> obvious
> > correct behaviour.
> >
> >
> > -- Markus
> >
> >
> > > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: tdw...@li...
> > > [mailto:tdw...@li...] Im Auftrag von
> > > John R. WIECZOREK
> > > Gesendet: Montag, 24. Juli 2006 18:28
> > > An: ro...@td...
> > > Cc: PyWrapper Developers mailing list; tdw...@li...
> > > Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:
> > > capabilities
> > >
> > > Logging that a GUID was used isn't sufficient; it doesn't
> > > tell how the data were used. What I'm after is to log the
> > > actual query that would have had to go to the provider to
> > > produce the results used. The example in your second example
> > > shouldn't happen, the query should specify a record limit per
> > > provider.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/24/06, Roger Hyam <ro...@td...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >       I thought this sounded like a good idea but since
> > > reading Renato's message I am now confused.
> > >
> > >       If a user does a search on a portal and gets 100
> > > results and looks at the first 10 does the provider of the
> > > 11th record get notified? Their data has been used because it
> > > has been given in the count.  Another example would be if a
> > > portal gave a distribution map to 10km squares based in data
> > > from multiple providers. Each data point is made from several
> > > suppliers data and removal of any one supplier's data may not
> > > change the map. Do we notify them all?
> > >
> > >       I could envisage a GUID based system just about. The
> > > call to the log function would basically say "Some one has
> > > accessed the data that I got from you that you tag with this
> > > GUID" but I can't see how this would work on a search based
> > > system. The log call would mean "Some one searched for
> > > something that made used of data I got from a search I did on
> > > you once".
> > >
> > >       So really the only service we need is a GUID based one.
> > > Perhaps extending the LSID resolution spec would be more appropriate?
> > >
> > >       Roger
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >       Renato De Giovanni wrote:
> > >
> > >               Hi John,
> > >
> > >               Implementing the log request was never a
> > > problem. We discussed about
> > >               that again during the Madrid meeting, and only
> > > after that a feature
> > >               freeze was suggested. It's true that PyWrapper
> > > is being adjusted now
> > >
> > >               to conform to the new specs, and considering
> > > that DiGIR2 (or wasabi)
> > >               postponed implementation of TAPIR, I suppose it
> > > should not be a big
> > >               problem to make additional changes if necessary.
> > >
> > >               The main problem I had with the log request was
> > > that it would
> > >
> > >               probably not solve the issue behind it, which
> > > is to track usage by
> > >               data aggregators. I still have the same
> > > feeling, and I can easily
> > >               imagine situations when it would not be easy or
> > > even possible to
> > >               translate searches on top of cached databases
> > > to TAPIR requests.
> > >
> > >
> > >               But maybe I'm wrong, and if you all think it's
> > > a good feature then we
> > >               can try to include it. However, I do think that
> > > providers should be
> > >               able to advertise as the part of capabilities
> > > if they want to receive
> > >
> > >               log requests or not.
> > >
> > >               To me it also sounds like a new operation,
> > > especially if it's only
> > >               related to search. It could make sense for
> > > view, inventory and
> > >               metadata operations. Maybe capabilities too.
> > > But it doesn't make
> > >
> > >               sense for ping. Well, maybe it could make sense
> > > for ping if the data
> > >               aggregator monitors provider status and accepts
> > > similar requests on
> > >               top of its results...
> > >
> > >               So, yes, it could be a new attribute "logOnly"
> > > as part of the
> > >
> > >               operationRequestGroup with an answer
> > > </received> (just after the
> > >               response header). And we could add an attribute
> > > "acceptLogRequests"
> > >               in the <operations> element in capabilities
> > > responses. The other
> > >
> > >               option would be to include a new operation, but
> > > maybe it's better to
> > >               just have it as an optional attribute for all
> > > operations.
> > >
> > >               Best Regards,
> > >               --
> > >               Renato
> > >
> > >               On 19 Jul 2006 at 10:32, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >                       I appreciate that you will consider
> > > this request. I always thought
> > >                       it
> > >                       would be trivial to implement. Your
> > > simulation mode sounds very much
> > >                       like what I had in mind. I hadn't
> > > thought it necessary to get a
> > >
> > >                       response from a log request, but if
> > > there was a simple response, it
> > >                       could be used as a ping, or it could be
> > > used to retry logging until
> > >                       the provider did respond. So, something
> > > like <log request received>.
> > >
> > >                       I think the addition oflogOnly
> > > attribute is a good one, and could
> > >                       apply to every request type.
> > >
> > >                       Javi, I don't disagree that portals
> > > SHOULD log the data usage,
> > >                       especially to cover the situations
> > > where a provider doesn't respond.
> > >
> > >                       I also think that having the
> > > information logged at the provider is a
> > >                       responsible course of action, since
> > > they will have immediate access
> > >                       to the usage statistics that way. It
> > > will be much easier for a
> > >                       portal
> > >
> > >                       builder to send log requests than it
> > > will be to build the
> > >                       infrastructure and interfaces to logs,
> > > therefore it is more likely
> > >                       to
> > >                       actually get done.
> > >
> > >
> > >                       On 7/18/06, Javier de la Torre
> > >                       <ja...@mn...>
> > > <mailto:ja...@mn...>  wrote:
> > >                           I am not sure about this,
> > >
> > >                           I still think that portals should
> > > be gathering this data and
> > >                       making
> > >                           it available for data providers...
> > >
> > >                           But in any case if you like it then
> > > I agree with MArkus that the
> > >
> > >                       best
> > >                           is to include another parameter in
> > > the operationRequestGroup.
> > >
> > >                           I havent checked but what happens
> > > if you do an extension there
> > >                       with
> > >                           an attribute that is implementation
> > > specific? A qualified
> > >
> > >                       attribute.
> > >                           Will this still validate against
> > > our schema? You were
> > >                       discussing
> > >                           about qualification of attributes before no=
?
> > >
> > >                           Javi.
> > >
> > >                           On 18/07/2006, at 10:41, D=F6ring,
> > > Markus wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >                           > John,
> > >                           > all changes going on with TAPIR
> > > right now are really only
> > >                       changes
> > >                           > in terminology or removing
> > > inconsistencies we did not detect
> > >                       before
> > >                           > we started the documentation and
> > > final implementation.
> > >
> > >                           >
> > >                           >
> > >                           > But nevertheless I would support
> > > your request. Especially from
> > >                       the
> > >                           > implementation side of view this
> > > is a trivial change to the
> > >                       code.
> > >                           > So why dont add it? Just some
> > > additional thoughts:
> > >
> > >                           >
> > >                           >
> > >                           > - Ive added a "simulation" mode
> > > already to my code where no
> > >                       SQL
> > >                           > gets executed but just logged. So
> > > you can test
> > >                       configurations
> > >                           > without risking sending off
> > > killer statements. Thats similar
> > >
> > >                       to
> > >                           > logOnly I guess, returning
> > > nothing but diagnostics. What would
> > >                       you
> > >                           > suggest to be returned for a
> > > logOnly request? just the empty
> > >                       TAPIR
> > >                           > envelope? Nothing? <OK>?
> > >                           >
> > >
> > >                           > - would this log-only request not
> > > be needed for all requests?
> > >                       at
> > >                           > least for inventories? So it
> > > would be easiest to have a new
> > >                       logOnly
> > >                           > parameter in the header or
> > > "request element" just after the
> > >
> > >                       header?
> > >                           > something like <search logOnly=3D"true">
> > >                           >
> > >                           >
> > >                           >
> > >                           > -- Markus
> > >                           >
> > >                           >
> > >                           >> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> > >                           >> Von:
> > >                       pyw...@li...
> > >
> > >                           >>
> > > [mailto:pyw...@li...
> > >                       ] Im
> > >                           >> Auftrag von John R. WIECZOREK
> > >                           >> Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juli 2006 23:30
> > >                           >> An: Renato De Giovanni
> > >                           >> Cc:
> > >                       pyw...@li...
> > > <mailto:pyw...@li...> ; tdwg-
> > >                           ta...@li...
> > >
> > >                           >> Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel]
> > > [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:
> > >                           >> capabilities
> > >                           >>
> > >                           >> 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 in
> > > 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...>
> > > <mailto: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...
> > > <mailto:tdw...@li...>
> > >               http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >       --
> > >
> > >       -------------------------------------
> > >        Roger Hyam
> > >        Technical Architect
> > >        Taxonomic Databases Working Group
> > >       -------------------------------------
> > >
> > >       http://www.tdwg.org <http://www.tdwg.org>
> > >        ro...@td...
> > >        +44 1578 722782
> > >       -------------------------------------
> > >
> > >       _______________________________________________
> > >       tdwg-tapir mailing list
> > >       tdw...@li...
> > >       http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
> > > <http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tdwg-tapir mailing list
> > tdw...@li...
> > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
> >
>
>
>
>

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

[Renato De G. <re...@cr...>]

OK, Markus. Agreed.
But maybe we could also consider an empty metadata response, because
"dct:modified" will likely require interaction with the DB. And it could
take some time for the larger ones (experience from DiGIR).

Regards,
--
Renato

> I have implemented the log-only request now and would like to suggest the
> following:
>
> 1) add "log-only" attribute to responeOperationGroup. Ive chosen
> "log-only" cause we already have there an attribute "apply-xslt"
> 2) add a mandatory boolean attribute "logRequestsDenied" to the operation
> element in a capabilities request
> 3) use existing responses for the log-only request. So if you do a search
> with log-only active, you will get an empty search response back. Thats
> much easier to implement and doesnt require any change in the schema. The
> same works with inventories. Pong, Capa & Meta responses dont cost much
> anyway, so we could do a normal response (if anyway uses log-only with
> those requests at all)
>
>
> Does everyone agree to this?
> The schema is already updated for this.
>
>
> Markus

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

[<m.d...@BG...>]

good.=20
PyWrapper caches the metadata in a file and the provider can specify how =
often it should be updated. Usually once a day. Then its lightning fast =
except for the 1 query. But an empty metadata element is ok. The schema =
currently doesnt allow this I think. Should we make at least the =
dct:modified optional? Ah, the ABCDdiscussion again...

-- Markus
 =20

> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: pyw...@li...=20
> [mailto:pyw...@li...] Im=20
> Auftrag von Renato De Giovanni
> Gesendet: Montag, 31. Juli 2006 14:28
> An: tdw...@li...
> Cc: PyWrapper Developers mailing list
> Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:=20
> capabilities
>=20
> OK, Markus. Agreed.
> But maybe we could also consider an empty metadata response,=20
> because "dct:modified" will likely require interaction with=20
> the DB. And it could take some time for the larger ones=20
> (experience from DiGIR).
>=20
> Regards,
> --
> Renato
>=20
> > I have implemented the log-only request now and would like=20
> to suggest=20
> > the
> > following:
> >
> > 1) add "log-only" attribute to responeOperationGroup. Ive chosen=20
> > "log-only" cause we already have there an attribute "apply-xslt"
> > 2) add a mandatory boolean attribute "logRequestsDenied" to the=20
> > operation element in a capabilities request
> > 3) use existing responses for the log-only request. So if you do a=20
> > search with log-only active, you will get an empty search response=20
> > back. Thats much easier to implement and doesnt require any=20
> change in=20
> > the schema. The same works with inventories. Pong, Capa & Meta=20
> > responses dont cost much anyway, so we could do a normal=20
> response (if=20
> > anyway uses log-only with those requests at all)
> >
> >
> > Does everyone agree to this?
> > The schema is already updated for this.
> >
> >
> > Markus
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join=20
> SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to=20
> share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief=20
> surveys -- and earn cash=20
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=3Djoin.php&p=3Dsourceforge
&CID=3DDEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> PyWrapper-devel mailing list
> PyW...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pywrapper-devel
>=20

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

[Javier de la T. <ja...@gm...>]

Cool,

Then we dont have to discuss anything. Lets make it optional.

Cheers.

On 7/31/06, "D=F6ring, Markus" <m.d...@bg...> wrote:
> good.
> PyWrapper caches the metadata in a file and the provider can specify how =
often it should be updated. Usually once a day. Then its lightning fast exc=
ept for the 1 query. But an empty metadata element is ok. The schema curren=
tly doesnt allow this I think. Should we make at least the dct:modified opt=
ional? Ah, the ABCDdiscussion again...
>
> -- Markus
>
>
> > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: pyw...@li...
> > [mailto:pyw...@li...] Im
> > Auftrag von Renato De Giovanni
> > Gesendet: Montag, 31. Juli 2006 14:28
> > An: tdw...@li...
> > Cc: PyWrapper Developers mailing list
> > Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:
> > capabilities
> >
> > OK, Markus. Agreed.
> > But maybe we could also consider an empty metadata response,
> > because "dct:modified" will likely require interaction with
> > the DB. And it could take some time for the larger ones
> > (experience from DiGIR).
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Renato
> >
> > > I have implemented the log-only request now and would like
> > to suggest
> > > the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > 1) add "log-only" attribute to responeOperationGroup. Ive chosen
> > > "log-only" cause we already have there an attribute "apply-xslt"
> > > 2) add a mandatory boolean attribute "logRequestsDenied" to the
> > > operation element in a capabilities request
> > > 3) use existing responses for the log-only request. So if you do a
> > > search with log-only active, you will get an empty search response
> > > back. Thats much easier to implement and doesnt require any
> > change in
> > > the schema. The same works with inventories. Pong, Capa & Meta
> > > responses dont cost much anyway, so we could do a normal
> > response (if
> > > anyway uses log-only with those requests at all)
> > >
> > >
> > > Does everyone agree to this?
> > > The schema is already updated for this.
> > >
> > >
> > > Markus
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------
> > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join
> > SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to
> > share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief
> > surveys -- and earn cash
> > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=3Djoin.php&p=3Dsourceforge
> &CID=3DDEVDEV
> > _______________________________________________
> > PyWrapper-devel mailing list
> > PyW...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pywrapper-devel
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share y=
our
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=3Djoin.php&p=3Dsourceforge&CID=3D=
DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> PyWrapper-devel mailing list
> PyW...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pywrapper-devel
>

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

[Renato De G. <re...@cr...>]

Hi again,

Now about the dct:modified message...

In DiGIR/DarwinCore networks "DateLastModified" is mandatory both as 
a mapped concept and as a resource attribute inside each metadata 
response. I'm not sure how important it is to force providers to 
include this information even when they cannot get it automatically 
from individual records. It makes a difference for indexers, but they 
can live without this information (basically re-scanning everything 
periodically).

The content of dct:modified could also be manually updated whenever 
there are significant changes in the underlying data. In the worst 
case it would always show us the provider's creation date. But then 
we should probably have dct:modifed and dct:created...

I can't remember if there was any specific reason for not including 
both DublinCore fields. Anyway, it makes sense to have dct:created 
and dct:modified, doesn't matter if optional or mandatory.

Regards,
--
Renato

On 31 Jul 2006 at 15:18, Javier de la Torre wrote:

> Cool,
> 
> Then we dont have to discuss anything. Lets make it optional.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> On 7/31/06, "D=F6ring, Markus" <m.d...@bg...> wrote:
> > good.
> > PyWrapper caches the metadata in a file and the provider can
> specify how often it should be updated. Usually once a day. Then its
> lightning fast except for the 1 query. But an empty metadata element
> is ok. The schema currently doesnt allow this I think. Should we
> make at least the dct:modified optional? Ah, the ABCDdiscussion
> again...
> >
> > -- Markus
> >
> >
> > > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: pyw...@li...
> > > [mailto:pyw...@li...] Im
> > > Auftrag von Renato De Giovanni
> > > Gesendet: Montag, 31. Juli 2006 14:28
> > > An: tdw...@li...
> > > Cc: PyWrapper Developers mailing list
> > > Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir:
> > > capabilities
> > >
> > > OK, Markus. Agreed.
> > > But maybe we could also consider an empty metadata response,
> > > because "dct:modified" will likely require interaction with
> > > the DB. And it could take some time for the larger ones
> > > (experience from DiGIR).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Renato
> > >
> > > > I have implemented the log-only request now and would like
> > > to suggest
> > > > the
> > > > following:
> > > >
> > > > 1) add "log-only" attribute to responeOperationGroup. Ive
> chosen
> > > > "log-only" cause we already have there an attribute
> "apply-xslt"
> > > > 2) add a mandatory boolean attribute "logRequestsDenied" to
> the
> > > > operation element in a capabilities request
> > > > 3) use existing responses for the log-only request. So if you
> do a
> > > > search with log-only active, you will get an empty search
> response
> > > > back. Thats much easier to implement and doesnt require any
> > > change in
> > > > the schema. The same works with inventories. Pong, Capa &
> Meta
> > > > responses dont cost much anyway, so we could do a normal
> > > response (if
> > > > anyway uses log-only with those requests at all)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Does everyone agree to this?
> > > > The schema is already updated for this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Markus

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

[Javier de la T. <ja...@gm...>]

Hi Renato,

> The content of dct:modified could also be manually updated whenever
> there are significant changes in the underlying data. In the worst
> case it would always show us the provider's creation date. But then
> we should probably have dct:modifed and dct:created...
>
> I can't remember if there was any specific reason for not including
> both DublinCore fields. Anyway, it makes sense to have dct:created
> and dct:modified, doesn't matter if optional or mandatory.
>

I also dont remember, but I think it was because Markus just looked  
for the dublin core concepts that matched the previous concepts we  
had. So probably we haven't even consider it. I really dont mind  
adding it, well I mind because we are feature freeze already, but  
apart of this I dont mind... maybe I tend more for optional than  
mandatory because, again, when something was created can also be  
difficult to figure out. Let say that I update my provider software,  
if the software doesnt take care the creation date will be "recreated".

Javi.