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

Raj Singh rsingh at opengeospatial.org
Sun Apr 27 14:51:54 EDT 2008


OK. Simon and Andrea are convincing me of the need for "geometryless"  
features. End of discussion!
---
Raj


On Apr 27, 2008, at 4:41 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:
> Simon.Cox at csiro.au ha scritto:
>> 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.
>
> 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
> as well. Couple that with the consolidation of javascript based UI  
> and a
> WFS that can generate (geo)JSON and you'll see geometryless data
> being used more and more.
>
> Cheers
> Andrea



More information about the CITE-Forum mailing list