RofR documentation, status
kmb at mssl.ucl.ac.uk
Wed Jun 6 12:43:21 PDT 2007
Couple of comments below.
Ray Plante wrote:
> Hey Kevin,
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, KevinBenson wrote:
>> One more thing. Your xpath you use in the document:
>> *|capability[xsi:type='vg:Registry']/interface[role='std' and
>> I will ponder a little more about point b.) from what I can see you
>> get the same results with or without the 'set' parameter, the only
>> difference is when you don't use the 'set' you might get back a few
>> more 'Standard' type Resources that are not vg:Registry. Unless I am
>> missing something.
> o Do you recognize that you will get those same vg:Registry records
> again when you harvest from the other registries?
Yes I recognize that, and from what I can see that is going to happen if
you harvest with or without the 'set=ivo_publishers'
> o Do you recognize that the RofR will be among the vg:Registry records,
> and that if you (blindly) harvest from the RofR again with
> set=ivo_managed that you will get Standard records again?
Yep I recognize that, my intention for a full Registry is simply during
the harvest cycle to harvest RofR without a 'set' parameter (and use
'from' except the first time) which as stated by OAI should give me all
of RofR resources. For all other publishing registries I will use
'ivo_managed' the only thing different is to make sure RofR is harvested
first to make sure if there is a updated vg:Registry in a publishing
Registry that I will have the most up to date record versus the possible
out of date RofR one.
I guess it is all of about implementation details so nothing to worry
about. I just did not see how the 'set' is really giving you anything
different except for a special type of client (not a Full registry) that
does not want the Standard Resources.
> Again, it's okay if you do it this way and deal with the 2 above
> issues; nevertheless, there is a difference.
More information about the registry