[Geopackage] Views ... may be used to provide compatibility...

Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt pepijn at vaneeckhoudt.net
Tue Mar 14 14:58:46 EDT 2017

Hi Jeff,

If I remember it correctly this was added because gpkg_geometry_columns does not have the exact same schema as st_geometry_columns from SQL/MM and geometry_columns from SF/SQL.
I think there was some concern about this not being compatible with existing SF/SQL code and that these views were intended to illustrate how you could make a view that provides compatibility.


> On 14 Mar 2017, at 04:25, Jeff Yutzler via Geopackage <geopackage at lists.opengeospatial.org> wrote:
> Hello list. In the SWG meeting today we were reviewing some text in the standard and we came across this nugget in section
> Views of this table or view MAY be used to provide compatibility with the SQL/MM [12] <http://www.geopackage.org/spec/#12> SQL/MM View of gpkg_geometry_columns Definition SQL (Informative) <http://www.geopackage.org/spec/#sqlmm_gpkg_geometry_columns_sql> and OGC Simple Features SQL [9] <http://www.geopackage.org/spec/#9>[10] <http://www.geopackage.org/spec/#10>[11] <http://www.geopackage.org/spec/#11> SF/SQL VIEW of gpkg_geometry_columns Definition SQL (Informative) <http://www.geopackage.org/spec/#sfsql_gpkg_geometry_columns_sql> specifications.
> No one on the call could recall what this was about. In retrospect it seems odd because as far as we can remember this part of the standard was derived directly from those standards. 
> If this block is important, we'd just like to know why. If it is not important, we would just assume get rid of it.
> Regards,
> Jeff
> -- 
> Jeff Yutzler
> Image Matters LLC <http://www.imagemattersllc.com/>
> Mobile: (703) 981-8753

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geopackage/attachments/20170314/813eff2e/attachment.html>

More information about the Geopackage mailing list