[moby] RE: [MOBY-dev] vote on the RFC discussing Error Reporting

[Pieter Neerincx]

Hi David,

On 3-Nov-2005, at 6:36 PM, David González Pisano wrote:
>
> - Pieter (3/11/2005) - refArticlename - NOT INCLUDED. I know this  
> can open a new can of worms about whether articlenames should be  
> mandatory or not, and we have talked about this in the past. The  
> problem is not with the exception reporting proposal, but with the  
> MOBY specification itself: if Articlenames are not mandatory, and I  
> can send several elements to the same type to my service, how can I  
> differenciate them? If there is no need to differenciate them, or  
> that does not make sense from the point of view of the service  
> execution, then it makes no sense from the point of view of the  
> exception reporting. If I cannot identify them individually, then I  
> cannot report exceptions about them individually and thus I have to  
> say "There is a problem with one or more or the inputs"

Good point. It's more clear to me now and I think what you describe  
above is the best solution for the current BioMOBY spec.

> If I can differenciate them because they have an Articlename, then  
> I use the refElement tag to refer to the problematic element...

If you ignore the element name and use the articleName attribute to  
point to specific elements I do think it makes more sense to name  
that attribute refArticleName instead of refElement though. Having  
the refElement attribute contain a articleName adds unnescessary  
confusion to the error reporting mix.

Cheers,

Pieter

> Does this make sense?
>
> _______________________________________________
> MOBY-dev mailing list
> MOBY-dev at biomoby.org
> http://www.biomoby.org/mailman/listinfo/moby-dev


Wageningen University and Research centre (WUR)
Laboratory of Bioinformatics
Transitorium (building 312) room 1034
Dreijenlaan 3
6703 HA Wageningen
The Netherlands
phone: 0317-483 060
fax: 0317-483 584
mobile: 06-143 66 783
pieter.neerincx at wur.nl