Harvesting experiences

[Guy Rixon]

Hi Ray,

yes, understood.

However, could we have some "statute of limitations" on how long a  
publisher has to keep their deleted records? Six months should be  
ample to get everybody into sync. Any harvesting registry that can't  
harvest within six months needs to drop its entire collection and  
start from fresh.

Cheers,
Guy

On 1 May 2008, at 12:22, 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3006 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/registry/attachments/20080501/48535ca3/attachment-0001.bin>