[CITE-Forum] [wfs-dev] WFS 1.1.0 CITE tests: multiplegeometrytypes ona single layer

Simon.Cox at csiro.au Simon.Cox at csiro.au
Sun Apr 27 03:27:21 EDT 2008


Raj Singh wrote: 
>(a 
> 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. 

Simon
______
Simon.Cox at csiro.au  CSIRO Exploration & Mining
26 Dick Perry Avenue, Kensington WA 6151 
PO Box 1130, Bentley WA 6102  AUSTRALIA
T: +61 (0)8 6436 8639  Cell: +61 (0) 403 302 672
Polycom PVX: 130.116.146.28
<http://www.csiro.au>

ABN: 41 687 119 230
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wfs-dev-bounces+simon.cox=csiro.au at lists.opengeospatial.org
> [mailto:wfs-dev-bounces+simon.cox=csiro.au at lists.opengeospatial.org]
On
> Behalf Of Raj Singh
> Sent: Saturday, 26 April 2008 1:57 AM
> To: Ian Painter; wfs-dev at lists.opengeospatial.org
> Cc: Kralidis, Tom [Burlington]; David Arctur; cite-
> forum at lists.opengeospatial.org; Yewondwossen Assefa
> Subject: Re: [wfs-dev] [CITE-Forum] WFS 1.1.0 CITE tests:
> multiplegeometrytypes ona single layer
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wfs-dev mailing list
> wfs-dev at lists.opengeospatial.org
> https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/wfs-dev




More information about the CITE-Forum mailing list