[CITE-Forum] srsName now without version

[Justin Deoliveira]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the explanation. So should the test cases be using a regular
expression instead of doing the straight match to "...EPSG:4326". As
currently written when a versioned definition is returned the tests fail.

-Justin

Richard Martell wrote:
> Justin,
> 
> 
> That's correct. The version segment in the id is optional; if it's 
> absent and the resource is versioned, the current one is implied.
> 
> Also, we've learned that the OGP does not actually version CRS 
> definitions. The EPSG version number (e.g. 6.14) applies to the 
> entire geodetic _dataset_, not to a given entry. I'll try to 
> confirm this versioning policy.
> 
> And Carl Reed tells us that IANA approval of the "ogc" namespace 
> identifier is imminent, so we can go ahead and use it as if it 
> were official (urn:ogc:*).
> 
> 
> --
> Richard
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 
>> cite-forum-bounces+rmartell=galdosinc.com at opengeospatial.org 
>> [mailto:cite-forum-bounces+rmartell=galdosinc.com at opengeospati
> al.org] On Behalf Of Justin Deoliveira
>> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November, 2007 12:43
>> To: cite-forum at opengeospatial.org
>> Subject: [CITE-Forum] srsName now without version
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have been running wfs 1.1 cite tests with the trunk version of the
>> engine and tests. I notice now that all srsName's are without the
>> version of the epsg database (at least I think that is what 
>> the numbers
>> were for).
>>
>> For instance "urn:x-ogc:def:crs:EPSG:6.11.2:4326" is not just
>> "urn:x-ogc:def:crs:EPSG:4326".
>>
>> -Justin
>>
>> -- 
>> Justin Deoliveira
>> The Open Planning Project
>> http://topp.openplans.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> CITE-Forum mailing list
>> CITE-Forum at opengeospatial.org
>> https://mail.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/cite-forum
>>
> 
> !DSPAM:4007,4745ab73290471628642973!
> 


-- 
Justin Deoliveira
The Open Planning Project
http://topp.openplans.org