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

Raj Singh rsingh at opengeospatial.org
Fri Apr 25 13:56:35 EDT 2008


Thanks for the input Ian. I think we're at the point where we need a  
definitive statement from the WFS WG clarifying whether a WFS  
supporting GML SF0 must handle features with multiple geometries and  
different geometry types. And ideally, these requirements should be  
stated in the assertions in the abstract test suite.
---
Raj


On Apr 25, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Ian Painter wrote:
> All,
>
> 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'.
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> cite-forum-bounces+ian.painter=snowflakesoftware.com at lists.opengeospatia
> l.org
> [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.
>
> ---
> Raj
>
>
> 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
> https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/cite-forum
>
> _______________________________________________
> CITE-Forum mailing list
> CITE-Forum at lists.opengeospatial.org
> https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/cite-forum



More information about the CITE-Forum mailing list