KMLM List
View email archives for the history of this mailing list.
|
|
|
|
sushidevelopers - Re: [sushidevelopers] Counter XML Question
|
Message Thread:
Previous |
Next
|
- To: Marco van Schagen <marco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Kim, Tae" <Tae.Kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:13:32 -0400
- Cc: John Milligan <john.milligan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "sushidevelopers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sushidevelopers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Send Email to sushidevelopers@list.niso.org:
- Send new message
- Reply to this message
|
Yes, I agree, it's redundant and non-normalized data. I was just looking for
something in the standard I can point to to prove my point to tell them it's
not SUSHI-compliant.
If not in the standard, I think it should be added.
-Tae Kim
On 4/17/09 10:03 AM, "Marco van Schagen" <marco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
This would work, however, imagine the harvester loading it all into his
database and then sum a total for 2008. The sum would return double the value.
We tried the same thing and this is how we did the YTD column. After thinking
it trough we decided to omit the summed values.
I believe certain parts of the counter screenshots are meant for easy human
readibility. I believe this include the sum values. In machine to machine
communication, easy human readibility is not an issue, avoiding invalidly
interpreted data is.
Marco
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Kim, Tae <Tae.Kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I looks like that, I just abstracted out the XML.
So actually, it looks like this with the sum at the end.
<Period>
<ItemPerformance>
<Begin>2008-01-01</Begin>
<End>2008-01-31</End>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_html</MetricType>
<Count>3</Count>
</Instance>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_pdf</MetricType>
<Count>41</Count>
</Instance>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_ps</MetricType>
<Count>0</Count>
</Instance>
</ItemPerformance>
<ItemPerformance>
<Begin>2008-02-01</Begin>
<End>2008-02-29</End>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_html</MetricType>
<Count>4</Count>
</Instance>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_pdf</MetricType>
<Count>68</Count>
</Instance>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_ps</MetricType>
<Count>0</Count>
</Instance>
</ItemPerformance>
<ItemPerformance>
<Begin>2008-03-01</Begin>
<End>2008-03-31</End>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_html</MetricType>
<Count>0</Count>
</Instance>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_pdf</MetricType>
<Count>52</Count>
</Instance>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_ps</MetricType>
<Count>0</Count>
</Instance>
</ItemPerformance>
<ItemPerformance>
<Begin>2008-01-01</Begin>
<End>2008-03-31</End>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_html</MetricType>
<Count>7</Count>
</Instance>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_pdf</MetricType>
<Count>161</Count>
</Instance>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_ps</MetricType>
<Count>0</Count>
</Instance>
</ItemPerformance>
</Period>
On 4/17/09 9:53 AM, "John Milligan" <john.milligan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<http://john.milligan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
If I am clear on what you're asking, that doesn't appear to be the standard. If
successful <MetricTypes /> are to be returned, the format should be similar to
the following snippet below:
<Period>
<ItemPerformance>
<Begin>2008-01-01</Begin>
<End>2008-01-31</End>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_html</MetricType>
<Count>3</Count>
</Instance>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_pdf</MetricType>
<Count>41</Count>
</Instance>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_ps</MetricType>
<Count>0</Count>
</Instance>
</ItemPerformance>
<ItemPerformance>
<Begin>2008-02-01</Begin>
<End>2008-02-29</End>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_html</MetricType>
<Count>4</Count>
</Instance>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_pdf</MetricType>
<Count>68</Count>
</Instance>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_ps</MetricType>
<Count>0</Count>
</Instance>
</ItemPerformance>
<ItemPerformance>
<Begin>2008-03-01</Begin>
<End>2008-03-31</End>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_html</MetricType>
<Count>0</Count>
</Instance>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_pdf</MetricType>
<Count>52</Count>
</Instance>
<Instance>
<MetricType>ft_ps</MetricType>
<Count>0</Count>
</Instance>
</ItemPerformance>
</Period>
I hope this helps.
John Milligan,
Principal/Lead SUSHI Developer
Scholarly iQ, LLC - IT & eBusiness Solutions
From: Kim, Tae [mailto:Tae.Kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 12:30 PM
To: sushidevelopers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <http://sushidevelopers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sushidevelopers] Counter XML Question
I'm working with Proquest sushi service and they return the stats for every
month and a total for all the months.
For example if I ask for Jan-March, it returns something like:
2008-01-01 to 2008-01-31: 3 requests
2008-02-01 to 2008-02-28: 4 requests
2008-03-01 to 2008-03-31: 1 requests
2008-01-01 to 2008-03-31: 8 requests
I'd LIKE to tell them that really, the last is redundant and spans multiple
months so it shouldn't be in the result.
But really, I can't find anything in the SUSHI or COUNTER standard that
dictates that each data point should be exactly one month in duration.
The xsd of course can't really validate anything like this.
Can anybody point me to something in the standard? Usage stats spanning
multiple months is kinda problematic for me and I imagine for other clients as
well.
Tae Kim
Software Developer
Serials Solutions
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.11.58/2061 - Release Date: 04/17/09
07:08:00
|
|
|
Mail converted by the most-excellent MHonArc 2.6.16
|
