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

Morris, Charles, E. chuck.morris at ngc.com
Tue Apr 29 11:50:41 EDT 2008

I wouldn't object to those modifications, but getting them done will not
be easy.  If the issues had been raised during the test review period,
they may have been accomodated, but it will be much more difficult now.
Someone would have to volunteer to do the modifications or sponsor doing
them, and the modified test suite would have to go through a review and
approval process again.  

- Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: cite-forum-bounces+chuck.morris=ngc.com at lists.opengeospatial.org
[mailto:cite-forum-bounces+chuck.morris=ngc.com at lists.opengeospatial.org
] On Behalf Of David Arctur
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 10:06 PM
To: 'Raj Singh'; 'Andrea Aime'
Cc: Tom.Kralidis at ec.gc.ca; wfs-dev at lists.opengeospatial.org;
Ian.Painter at snowflakesoftware.com; Simon.Cox at csiro.au;
cite-forum at lists.opengeospatial.org; assefa at dmsolutions.ca
Subject: Re: [CITE-Forum] [wfs-dev] WFS 1.1.0 CITE
tests:multiplegeometrytypes ona single layer

Well, but I think what started this was that the current tests require
servers to support two geometry properties on a feature, do I remember
that right? That seems unnecessarily onerous to require of all
I'd like to ask again: could we modify the tests so that (1) compliance
does not require supporting multiple geometry properties (zero or one
geometry property should be required); and (2) for implementations that
do support multiple geometry properties, that represents a higher level
of compliance or capability..? Can we have this level of nuance in our
compliance test for WFS with SF-GML? 


-----Original Message-----
From: Raj Singh [mailto:rsingh at opengeospatial.org]
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 1:52 PM
To: Andrea Aime
Cc: Simon.Cox at csiro.au; Ian.Painter at snowflakesoftware.com;
wfs-dev at lists.opengeospatial.org; Tom.Kralidis at ec.gc.ca;
darctur at ogcii.org; cite-forum at lists.opengeospatial.org;
assefa at dmsolutions.ca
Subject: Re: [wfs-dev] [CITE-Forum] WFS 1.1.0 CITE tests:
multiplegeometrytypes ona single layer

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

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

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

More information about the CITE-Forum mailing list