[CITE-Forum] srsName now without version

Richard Martell rmartell at galdosinc.com
Fri Nov 23 16:34:56 EST 2007


Justin,


That would be an appropriate workaround in the test scripts. I 
confirmed that the OGP does not version CRS definitions; old 
ones are superseded by newer ones (with different codes).

But a change request to amend the WFS 1.1 test data is also 
in order.

--
Richard


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Deoliveira [mailto:jdeolive at openplans.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November, 2007 08:38
> To: Richard Martell
> Cc: cite-forum at opengeospatial.org
> Subject: Re: [CITE-Forum] srsName now without version
> 
> 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
> 



More information about the CITE-Forum mailing list