[API-users] mediatype json formatting

[Scott Chamberlain]

Hi Markus,

Thanks very much for your feedback.

I don't remember the exact call I made, but this one shows the same
pattern with media elements:

http://api.gbif.org/v0.9/occurrence/search?mediaType=StillImage

Thanks for the clarification. Okay, I can handle the parsing on my end.

Cheers, Scott

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Markus D?ring <m.doering at mac.com> wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> the problem is slightly different from what it appears to be. The array of
> media items is indeed a list of 4 images.
> I could not find your example, but you can pick pretty much any of the
> iNaturalist observations, for example this one here:
> http://api.gbif.org/v0.9/occurrence/899944100
>
> There are 2 media items, one with a url to the image, one a link to the
> respective webpage.
> If you look at the verbatim content you can see that we simply get a list of
> 2 URLs concatenated into the single dwc:associatedMedia field:
> http://api.gbif.org/v0.9/occurrence/899944100/verbatim
>
> Why cannot safely know that the 2 links are indeed about the same image, so
> these end up being to media item. Because one of them has a jpg suffix we
> know it is a link to the image and derive a file type.
> This can be avoided by using the richer multimedia extension which allows an
> image and a webpage link within the same record:
> http://rs.gbif.org/extension/gbif/1.0/multimedia.xml
>
> See also our blog post which explains this issue in more details:
> http://gbif.blogspot.de/2014/05/multimedia-in-gbif.html
>
> best,
> Markus
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Markus D?ring
> Software Developer
> Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)
> mdoering at gbif.org
> http://www.gbif.org
>
>
>
>
>
> On 29 Jun 2014, at 07:59, Scott Chamberlain <scott at ropensci.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for adding media content to the occurrence endpoint output. I
> am curious if the below is the intended behavior. It appears as though
> the "references" field associated with an array of "type", "format",
> and "identifier" is in the next array.  Does it not make more sense to
> have the "references" field within the same array so when parsed we
> can easily tell that they go together?  I can tell by seeing that the
> photo ID is the same, but I wonder if that is the best approach since
> then we need to make sure a "references" field goes with an arry of
> type/format/identifier by e.g. regex-ing.
>
> Sorry if I am misunderstanding why this is the way it is :)
>
> [
>   {
>      type: "StillImage",
>      format: "image/jpeg",
>      identifier:
> "http://static.inaturalist.org/photos/696339/medium.JPG?1393473140";
>  },
>  {
>      references: "http://conabio.inaturalist.org/photos/696339";
>  },
>  {
>      type: "StillImage",
>      format: "image/jpeg",
>      identifier:
> "http://static.inaturalist.org/photos/696341/medium.JPG?1393473245";
>  },
>  {
>      references: "http://conabio.inaturalist.org/photos/696341";
>  }
> ]
>
> Thanks!
> Scott Chamberlain
> _______________________________________________
> API-users mailing list
> API-users at lists.gbif.org
> http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/api-users
>
>