[webservices] A question of location ID, how to represent empty IDs in XML?

[Chad Trabant]

On Jul 31, 2014, at 1:13 AM, Joachim Saul <saul at gfz-potsdam.de> wrote:

> Chad Trabant wrote on 31.07.2014 09:42:
>> On Jul 31, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Joachim Saul <saul at gfz-potsdam.de> wrote:
>>>> Has anyone observed this automatic trimming on any system?
>>> 
>>> No, and I agree that a generic parser should return a raw string as it is in the XML without implicit trimming, nullifying etc. To obtain a trimmed string, it's trivial to trim() the input strings as needed. That's what's done in ObsPy, too.
>>> 
>>> In fact even the *already* empty string location codes from libmseed are trimmed again at ObsPy level, just in case. ;)
>> 
>> HI Joachim,
>> 
>> You keep coming back to this as if it is meaningful.  libmseed and the parts of ObsPy getting information from libmseed are dealing with SEED data, where the current rules of parsing are clear.  What is your point exactly?
> 
> The point is that in libmseed you use a different empty location code naming than in StationXML. As I said a number of times, for me that's not a problem at all. Many clients can handle this and those that cannot can be modified easily. In particular, if you applied the same naming rules as in libmseed also in e.g. FetchData (by making a trivial change in the code) they would become consistent at a very low cost. It would be a benefit for the user.

Hi Joachim,

That is a strange transition from libmseed to web service clients that I do not understand.  You appear fixated on updating the clients, but as I have said many times that, by itself, will not solve the actual problem; the metadata remains inconsistent and at any rate we do not control many of the most popular parsers of this information such user-created programs.

>> Why do you think the existing metadata and decades of SEED would need to be changed?  Please explain.
> 
> Because otherwise a mapping would be required "forever". Until at least very recently you were strongly against any mapping, even calling the idea "rubbish" at one point

Here is what you said about mapping:

On Jul 28, 2014, at 4:51 AM, Joachim Saul <saul at gfz-potsdam.de> wrote:
> In general mappings are not the problem and are widely used anyway.


So what is the problem with mapping?

I was certainly not against mapping to/from "--", after all it was my proposal!  You have taken words of my out context.  Please stick to the technical issues and leave your personal indignation off of this mailing list.

Chad

> Joachim
> _______________________________________________
> webservices mailing list
> webservices at iris.washington.edu
> http://www.iris.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/webservices