Hi Scott, the download interface enables more complex queries with any kind of logical nesting similar to SQL clauses. Currently we do not actually make use of the possible complexity of download filters, but the initial design considered it. Personally I agree it would be nicer if the searhc and download interface would use the same filter definitions. We actually recognized this over a year ago but never had resources to address the discrepancy. Feel free to add comments: http://dev.gbif.org/issues/browse/POR-173
Markus On 29 Sep 2014, at 18:11, Scott Chamberlain <myrmecocystus at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi! > > I'm curious why the occurrence/download/ endpoint has a different interface > than the other occurrence endpoints (occurrence/search). I ask because I > work on the R client rgbif, and it would be nice to provide the same exact > interface to users whether they are getting JSON data or spinning up a > download. However, the query interfaces are quite different. This isn't a > big deal, as I can make both occurrence/download and occurrence/search > endpoints as similar as possible for users despite them being different > internally. > > Thanks! > Scott Chamberlain > _______________________________________________ > API-users mailing list > API-users at lists.gbif.org > http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/api-users -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gbif.org/pipermail/api-users/attachments/20140929/359031a5/attachment.html
