On 2 November 2010 11:21, Martin Guetlein <martin.guetlein at googlemail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Nina Jeliazkova
> <jeliazkova.nina at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Martin,
> >
> > On 2 November 2010 10:35, Martin Guetlein <
> martin.guetlein at googlemail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Nina, Christoph,
> >>
> >> What I am doing (implementation wise), is using the http code to
> >> identify whether the result of a POST call is a task (202) or the
> >> actual object (200). Doing that there is no unneeded additional HTTP
> >> call, and each service can return the task or the object itself,
> >> according to how long the process takes.
> >>
> >
> > Do you return object content, or object URI?
> >
> > Do you handle "Accept" header with different mime types the same way?
>
> If the result is computed as task, a POST always returns content-type
> "text/uri-list", content is the TASK uri, http-code is 202 (The task
> itself is available in different content-types).
>
> Returning the task if the POST accept header rdf, is still on todo
> list (nobody complained so far).
>

OK.

BTW, the http code could be 201 (as per wiki page)


>
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Nina Jeliazkova
> <jeliazkova.nina at gmail.com> wrote:
> > However, if the "Accept:text/uri-list" is requested instead of the
> default
> > RDF, the URL returned by completion will be the one of the result itself
> > (e.g. URL of a dataset with predicted results).
>
> Why don't you return the TASK uri in that case? IMHO the accept header
> should only affect the format of the object, not the returned object
> itself.
>

I guess, because it is redundant - GET of an URI to return the same URI.

Makes sense for consistency only.


>
> However, IMHO it is no problem that the web services return the object
> result or the task alternately, as long as it can be distinguished via
> http-code.
>
>
Fine as far as it is clearly specified.  Can we document on the API page
what is the expected behaviour in all cases?

Best regards,
Nina


> Best regards,
> Martin
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> So from my point of view the API with the __or__ is fine, maybe we
> >> should make the implementation a bit more clear.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nina
> >
> >
> >> Regards,
> >> Martin
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Nina Jeliazkova
> >> <jeliazkova.nina at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Dear Christoph,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 1 November 2010 19:22, Christoph Helma <helma at in-silico.ch> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Dear Nina, All,
> >> >>
> >> >> Excerpts from Nina Jeliazkova's message of Sat Oct 30 09:53:02 +0200
> >> 2010:
> >> >> > Hello All,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We have found somewhat inconsistent documentation, regarding the
> usage
> >> of
> >> >> > tasks.  The API wiki says it is either the URL of the result
> returned,
> >> or
> >> >> > the task URL.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In practice, if the (default) "Accept:application/rdf+xml" header
> is
> >> >> > requested, a task URL is always returned and the task contains
> >> >> information
> >> >> > if it is completed or not, and if it is completed, then the RDF
> >> >> > representation of the task contains the URI of result.
> >> >>
> >> >> I always had the impression that
> >> >>  - POST operations should return the URI of the created object _or_ a
> >> task
> >> >> URI (i.e. Accept:text/uri-list)
> >> >>        - GET operations should return the object representation in
> >> OWL-DL
> >> >> (by default in RDF/XML format) (i.e. Accept/application/rdf+xml)
> >> >>
> >> >> I would expect the following workflow for services that require tasks
> >> >> (thats how it was implemented in ALU/IST services):
> >> >>
> >> >> POST to the service - returns task URI
> >> >> GET the task URI - returns task rdfxml with status (and URI of the
> >> created
> >> >> object if status is Completed)
> >> >> If status is Completed: GET URI of result object - returns object
> >> >> representation (rdfxml by default)
> >> >>
> >> >> What would be the advantage of getting RDF/XML for a newly created
> task
> >> >> (status would be Created by definition)?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Not necessarily, for a quick operation the task might already be
> >> completed
> >> > and the result returned.  What we could gain is  one HTTP call less.
> >> >
> >> > The confusing point is actually "_or_" in the API - "URI of the
> created
> >> > object _or_ a task URI (i.e. Accept:text/uri-list) "  - it implies one
> >> could
> >> > receive URI of the result , not the task.  I would suggest to specify
> >> that
> >> > POST to a service always return a task (URI or representation) , not
> the
> >> URI
> >> > of the object.
> >> >
> >> > IDEA implementation is as follows:
> >> > - POST to the service - return task URI (if text/uri-list) or RDF/XML
> of
> >> a
> >> > task  (if Accept:application/rdf+xml is requested).
> >> >
> >> > - GET the task URI - returns task content in the requested
> representation
> >> > always (e.t. RDF/XML is requested, text-uri-list if requested).
> >> > In case of text/uri-list it returns task URI, but if the task is
> >> completed,
> >> > returns the object URI (with uri-list there is no really other options
> >> how
> >> > to return the result)
> >> >
> >> > - GET task URI never returns object representation, the result URI  is
> >> > available in the task representation.  The reason is the object might
> be
> >> a
> >> > huge, and the client application might not necessarily want to receive
> >> > entirely at this moment (e.g. might prefer to show it  page by page ).
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Nina
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Best regards,
> >> >> Christoph
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > However, if the "Accept:text/uri-list" is requested instead of the
> >> >> default
> >> >> > RDF, the URL returned by completion will be the one of the result
> >> itself
> >> >> > (e.g. URL of a dataset with predicted results).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Should we change anything, or just try to make the documentation
> >> clear?
> >> >> > Perhaps make explicit what is being returned if different "Accept:"
> >> >> headers
> >> >> > are used?
> >> >> > Are there implementations that handles these cases differently?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1)Algorithm  http://opentox.org/dev/apis/api-1.1/Algorithm
> >> >> > Result: *model URI ,dataset URI,featureURI* , Redirect to task URI
> for
> >> >> time
> >> >> > consuming computations
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Note: Redirect was removed from the API but apparently this page
> was
> >> not
> >> >> > updated, there is still reference to 303 status codes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2)Model  http://opentox.org/dev/apis/api-1.1/Model
> >> >> > Result: URI of created prediction dataset (predictions are
> features),
> >> >> task
> >> >> > URI for time consuming computations
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Best regards,
> >> >> > Nina
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Development mailing list
> >> >> Development at opentox.org
> >> >> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> >> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Development mailing list
> >> > Development at opentox.org
> >> > http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dipl-Inf. Martin Gütlein
> >> Phone:
> >> +49 (0)761 203 8442 (office)
> >> +49 (0)177 623 9499 (mobile)
> >> Email:
> >> guetlein at informatik.uni-freiburg.de
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Development mailing list
> >> Development at opentox.org
> >> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Development mailing list
> > Development at opentox.org
> > http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dipl-Inf. Martin Gütlein
> Phone:
> +49 (0)761 203 8442 (office)
> +49 (0)177 623 9499 (mobile)
> Email:
> guetlein at informatik.uni-freiburg.de
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at opentox.org
> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>