Harvesting experiences
KevinBenson
kmb at mssl.ucl.ac.uk
Thu May 1 04:33:05 PDT 2008
Yes that is correct search interface does not return deleted records. I
will double check the spec on that as well. I think XQuerySearch is the
one exception since it is the client that does the full xquery.
cheers,
Kevin
Ray Plante wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
>> Linde, A.E. wrote:
>>> I would have thought that deleted records should only be returned if
>>> they were recently deleted and the request is for an 'records
>>> updated since ...' but a request for ALL records should not bother
>>> with deleted records. That'd work,wouldn't it?
>
> A quick note on this. The Registry Interfaces standard makes no
> distinction between deleted and non-deleted records within the
> harvesting interface. This is indeed what you want. A harvester,
> when it encounters a deleted record, can choose to handle it in any
> way it desires. For example, it can truely deleted all trace of it in
> its own database. Since most harvests are incremental, the harvester
> should not be further bothered by a deleted record (unless it is later
> undeleted). The cost is then only on the originating registry. Such
> a registry may consider an alternative storage mechanism for deleted
> records to reduce internal overhead (e.g. of having deleted records
> cluttering up the searchable database).
>
> Note, however, that we have said that the search interface does not
> return deleted records by default, although I'm not actually seeing
> any mention of this in the spec. Am I remembering this correctly?
> (Kevin?)
>
> hope this helps,
> Ray
More information about the registry
mailing list