Perhaps use the "related" or "service" relation types from
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06#section-6.2
If I were crawling for service capability documents, the inclusion of
a type attribute for links would be most helpful. Is there an internet
media type specified for OWS capabilities? I'd fetch and process these
docs regardless of the link rel attribute.
Sean
On Jul 25, 2009, at 8:52 PM, Stefan Keller wrote:
Yes, "web of services" sounds good - but connected to the general web.
This is why I'm in favor of not only extending GetCapabilities but
also
1. extending robots.txt (see [1])
2. extending links/META tags in HTML ([1])
So I mostly agree with you but are unsure why you don't comment on
proposal 1. and 2.: you agree extending these three "protocols"?
Put yourself into the situation of a so called focussed webcrawler:
How do you guess which link to follow in the general web without these
"see" and "see also" links?
Yours, Stefan
2009/7/23 Sean Gillies <[email protected]>:
Stefan,
You're talking about capabilities documents linking to other
capabilities
documents, forming a "web of services"? I think it's probably going
to be
more profitable to exploit one of the bigger, more fertile webs
(using HTML
or RDF), each of which have proven techniques for making your content
discoverable.
Sean
On Jul 23, 2009, at 1:17 AM, Stefan Keller wrote:
How about getting better auto-discovery in the Geo-Web?
How about more special search engines for geospatial webservices?
Approach: Step 1. a focussed crawler is referred to a webservice
given
a (root) geo-website (“see” link) and step 2. the referrer and/or
the
geo-webservice indicates one or more "friends" ("see also" link,
[2]).
In other words, a porter points to the webservices - which is like a
finding needle in the haystack - and he and the found needles point
you to other needles!
These are the proposals I've collected so far:
1. extending robots.txt (see [1])
2. extending links/META tags in HTML ([1])
3. extending (geo-)sitemaps (www.sitemaps.org), and
4. extending GetCapabilities
What do you think?
Regards, S.
P.S. I favor 1,2 and 4. And I know I rather should ask geo-metadata
specialists (which I'll do) - but I think this is the right place to
start with.
[1]
http://www.openarchives.org/pipermail/oai-implementers/2006-November/001656.html
.
[2] http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/guidelines-friends.htm .
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
--
Sean Gillies
Software Engineer
Institute for the Study of the Ancient World
New York University
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
--
Sean Gillies
Software Engineer
Institute for the Study of the Ancient World
New York University
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
