FW: [OAI-implementers] Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Meta data Harvesting Version 2 news
Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:53:56 +1100
Sorry if this is all old hat to other people, but I find getting involved
is the best way to learn and understand. People can always ignore me! :-)
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:50:27PM -0500, Xiaoming Liu wrote:
> --- Walter Underwood wrote:
> > A request for all changes between two dates in the past should always get
> > the same answer, so stateless harvesting should work.
> This is a neat way, but I am now sure how well the past is kept in digital
> library ;-) Especially
> in OAI protocol, whenever a record is changed, its datestamp is changed
> too. So even a request
> for past may not get the same answer.
> Maybe there is one way to implement a stateless protocol in current OAI:
> encode query parameters in ResumptionToken:
> one example is:
> resumptionToken= 1999:2000:math:oai_dc:100
I assume the 100 means start from record 100.
So by your own argument, the contents of previous queries may change
between requests. So the server *must* keep a copy of the state of the
system when the original query was issued and continue to provide
that consistently to the client. If the results are not consistent,
data could be lost (overlooked) during a long transfer.
Let me expand and ask a few questions (partly from my ignorance).
Is it expected with OAI that new records will come into existance
at a previous point in time? Or are all new records always added
created with monotomically increasing date/time values? For example,
if metadata is harvested from a web site, would the dates of the
web pages be used? Or the date the data was harvested be used?
If the date of the web page, then when a new site is crawled,
new pages can come into existence dated in the past. If the date
the metadata was collected from the web page, then dates increase
If new records are *not* created with monotomic dates, then OAI falls
down doesn't it? Any one who has done a previous crawl may never crawl
for that old date range again and so not get the data. So to be safe,
dates must be monotomically increasing for metadata modified in the
If changes to the repository are then always given monotomically
increasing dates, then history will never be added to. However,
history can be lost if an old entry is updated (as it will be given
a newer date). So if a cursor scheme is used which says 'give me
records starting from 100' is used, then if a record that was in
the range 1-99 is updated between requests, then what was record
number 100 would slip back to become record number 99. The request
starting from 100 would then miss that record.
Or is the idea with OAI that if a record is updated, then the
old slot is marked as 'deleted' and a new record added as 'inserted'
to keep the same number of slots around?
The normal way this problem is addressed in database systems of
course is to use transactions. When the query is used, the full
answer is effectively worked out and kept around. Any updates,
inserts, or deletes do not affect the query results. The current
OAI protocol then uses the resumptionToken to identify the query
set. But at some stage, the query may be discarded. If the client
has not got all the data yet, then it has to start again from
scratch (unless the data is guaranteed to be returned in monotomically
increasing date order - which its not at present I think).
Using the identifier of a record to remember the position in a
result set is no good either. If that record is updated, it will
move in the result set, messing things up again.
The only invariant that I can think of is the date stamp.
If date/time stamps (to a high resolution) were used, and the
results of ListRecords was in monotomically increasing order
of time, then you actually no longer need resumptionToken at all.
Instead, a new request can be specified with a precise 'from'
value. That would make requests completely stateless. Deletions
in history (due to an update) would not be a problem.
Ok, I will be quiet now and let someone with more history behind
OAI and all its goals etc speak instead.