[CITE-Forum] [wfs-dev] WFS 1.1.0 CITE tests: multiplegeometrytypes ona single layer
aaime at openplans.org
Sun Apr 27 04:41:11 EDT 2008
Simon.Cox at csiro.au ha scritto:
> Raj Singh wrote:
>> document with 0 geometric properties should also pass, but I think
>> that is "a bad thing")
> Why is it a bad thing?
> And would you count "time" as a geometry?
> The OGC/ISO General Feature Model certainly does not require that every
> feature must have a geometric property.
> We should be careful about introducing constraints that makes SF deviate
> strongly from the expectations of the general model.
Chiming in to add a user perspective. At GeoServer we try to keep
"geometryless" features working, and we have users definitely using
WFS for that kind of data. Proof is that every time we fiddled with
reprojections and the like and introduced a code path expecting
a geometry to be there, we promptly had users complain about
their geometryless data not working anymore.
So despite the WFS being targeted at data with a geometric component,
there seem to be significant usage of it with geometryless data
WFS that can generate (geo)JSON and you'll see geometryless data
being used more and more.
More information about the CITE-Forum