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

Yewondwossen Assefa yassefa at dmsolutions.ca
Wed Apr 30 09:13:33 EDT 2008


Eric,

  This thread started because the current wfs 1.1 cite tests require 
servers to support more that one geometry.  I think David Arctur's 
earlier e-mail on this resumes well the initial issue the was raised.

Best Regards,

Eric_Blasenheim at mapinfo.com wrote:
> 
> When this thread started, I was under the impression that the discussion 
> was about having a layer where the geometry was of mixed types, points, 
> lines and/or polygons, etc.  However, it now seems the requirement is 
> that a single feature support more than one geometry. Are we all talking 
> about the same thing or was I the only one who was confused?
> 
> Eric Blasenheim
> Chief Product Architect
> Pitney Bowes MapInfo Corporation
> 
> 
> *"Morris, Charles, E." <chuck.morris at ngc.com>*
> Sent by: 
> cite-forum-bounces+eric.blasenheim=mapinfo.com at lists.opengeospatial.org
> 
> 04/29/2008 12:06 PM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	"David Arctur" <darctur at ogcii.org>, "Raj Singh" 
> <rsingh at opengeospatial.org>, "Andrea Aime" <aaime at openplans.org>
> 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
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> implementations.
> 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?
> 
> dka
> 
> -----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!
> ---
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Assefa Yewondwossen
Software Analyst

Email: assefa at dmsolutions.ca
http://www.dmsolutions.ca/

Phone: (613) 565-5056 (ext 14)
Fax:   (613) 565-0925
----------------------------------------------------------------



More information about the CITE-Forum mailing list