[CITE-Forum] WFS 1.1.0 CITE tests: multiple geometrytypes ona single layer

Ian Painter Ian.Painter at snowflakesoftware.com
Fri Apr 25 13:05:29 EDT 2008


Having just got our WFS through the 1.1.0 compliance I can totally
relate to the amount of effort / pain involved in getting 1.1.0
compliance. The WFS 1.1.0 tests are very comprehensive and adhere very
tightly to the spec (which is good thing). Given this, the development
required to get 1.1.0 compliance is considerable and shouldn't be
underestimated. It took us nearly 4 man months of development to get our
WFS through despite our WFS already being 1.0 compliant. 

Back to my concern ... in Europe there are numerous widely adopted
schemas that have more than one geometry per feature and adhere to
simple features. If we were to say that a WFS is 1.1.0 compliant then
people will naturally assume that it fully supports simple features and
therefore supports multiple geometry within a single feature. My
interpretation of the spec is that support for documents with only 1
geometry per feature isn't support for simple features. I'm afraid I
agree with Richard that either the Level 0 constraints need to further
restricted or WFS providers need to take the development hit (as we did)
in order to pass the tests. 

I appreciate that this is quite a hard-line response but we must never
get into situation of 'my WFS doesn't support X therefore can you take X
out of the compliance test'.


-----Original Message-----
cite-forum-bounces+ian.painter=snowflakesoftware.com at lists.opengeospatia
[mailto:cite-forum-bounces+ian.painter=snowflakesoftware.com at lists.openg
eospatial.org] On Behalf Of Raj Singh
Sent: 24 April 2008 22:04
To: David Arctur
Cc: 'Kralidis, Tom [Burlington]'; cite-forum at lists.opengeospatial.org;
'Yewondwossen Assefa'
Subject: Re: [CITE-Forum] WFS 1.1.0 CITE tests: multiple geometrytypes
ona single layer

This statement:
> "(c) features may have any number of geometric properties" (p. 20)

says to me that a compliant document could have 0 or more geometric
properties. There is no statement regarding the minimum number or types
of geometries required to be supported. Therefore a document with a
single geometric property should pass all required tests (a document
with 0 geometric properties should also pass, but I think that is "a bad
thing"). In this case I don't think the test data set matches what the
specification states.


On Apr 16, 2008, at 1:46 PM, David Arctur wrote:
> In the CITE tests, can we articulate that a software product supports 
> one OR more geometric properties, but grant compliance as long as at 
> least one geometric property is supported? Or is this really counter 
> to the intent of the spec?
> dka
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cite-forum-bounces+darctur=ogcii.org at lists.opengeospatial.org
> [mailto:cite-forum-bounces
> +darctur=ogcii.org at lists.opengeospatial.org] On
> Behalf Of Richard Martell
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:09 PM
> To: Raj Singh; Normand Savard
> Cc: Kralidis, Tom [Burlington]; cite-forum at lists.opengeospatial.org;
> Yewondwossen Assefa
> Subject: Re: [CITE-Forum] WFS 1.1.0 CITE tests: multiple geometry 
> types ona single layer
> Hi all,
> This is true, following the "Simple Features" GMLSF 1.0 profile (OGC 
> 06-049r1) at "Level 0":
> <http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=15201>
> "(c) features may have any number of geometric properties" (p. 20)
> If the profile isn't simple enough, it should be revised to further 
> restrict the "Level 0" constraints. Then the test suite can be amended

> accordingly.
> --
> Richard

CITE-Forum mailing list
CITE-Forum at lists.opengeospatial.org

More information about the CITE-Forum mailing list