|
|
|
|
sushidevelopers - Re: [sushidevelopers] Counter XML Question
|
Message Thread:
Previous |
Next
|
- To: "Kim, Tae" <Tae.Kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Marco van Schagen <marco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:17:53 +0200
- Cc: John Milligan <john.milligan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "sushidevelopers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sushidevelopers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Send Email to sushidevelopers@list.niso.org:
- Send new message
- Reply to this message
|
I agree, this has caused me headaches too. Now everybody needs their own
"this makes sense" solution. And then the harvesters need to implement their
solution to all variations we created :)
marco
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Kim, Tae <Tae.Kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 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<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
>
>
>
>
|
|
KMLM List