[Requests] SWE Common 2.0 comments

Clemens Portele portele at interactive-instruments.de
Mon Apr 12 13:43:25 EDT 2010


PART A


1. Evaluator: 

Clemens Portele, portele at interactive-instruments.de

2. Submission: 

08-094 (OGC SWE Common Data Model Encoding Standard)


PART B.1


1. Requirement: General


2. Implementation Specification Section number: General


3. Criticality: Major


4. Comments/justifications for changes: The standardisation target for the different requirement classes are not always clear. Consider to explicitly state the standardisation target type per requirements class as well as the direct and indirect dependencies.

For example, req #56 targets an XML instance, req #57 another schema, and req #55 targets "implementations", but it is unclear what is this term refers to. Other requirements classes explicitly refer to "encoding or software", e.g. req #15, while others target software only, e.g. req #18. 


PART B.2


1. Requirement: n/a


2. Implementation Specification Section number: Clause 4


3. Criticality: Minor


4. Comments/justifications for changes: The definitions differ from the definitions in other OGC standards. Align definitions. Often additional text is added which should be moved to notes, if necessary.


PART B.3


1. Requirement: n/a


2. Implementation Specification Section number: 8.3.1


3. Criticality: Major


4. Comments/justifications for changes: Align range structure encoding with WCS 2.0 (wcsgml:RangeStructure). Consistency and harmonisation between WCS and SWE Common is important, also with regard to future revisions of the coverage encoding of GML.


PART B.4


1. Requirement: n/a


2. Implementation Specification Section number: 7.3/8.3


3. Criticality: Major


4. Comments/justifications for changes: The scope of the data components like swe:DataRecord is not entirely clear. Is this, for example, intended as a general encoding of record in ISO 11404? In this case such an encoding should probably not be specified in a SWE standard, but a more general standard. If it is not a general encoding the scope should be clarified in the document.


PART B.5


1. Requirement: n/a


2. Implementation Specification Section number: 7.2.2, 7.2.10, 7.2.15, Annex B and others


3. Criticality: Major


4. Comments/justifications for changes: A new conceptual model and encoding for temporal concepts is developed as part of SWE Common instead of importing ISO 19108. The reasons for this are unclear. Consider using the model from ISO 19108 or propose changes to the model in ISO 19108 and use this amended version. 


PART B.6


1. Requirement: n/a


2. Implementation Specification Section number: Figure 7.3, AbstractSimpleComponent


3. Criticality: Minor


4. Comments/justifications for changes: Since the models are intended to be conceptual, AbstractSimpleComponent.referenceFrame should have a value of SC_CRS. To encode this as a reference is an encoding decision. Other occurances of URI should be evaluated what type is conceptually the value type of the property.


PART B.7


1. Requirement: n/a


2. Implementation Specification Section number: Clause 7


3. Criticality: Minor


4. Comments/justifications for changes: The need for the stereotypes <<property>> and <<soft-typed property>> are unclear in the conceptual model. How do they alter the concepts as part of the conceptual model (not the encoding model)? Consider removing the stereotypes from the conceptual model.


PART B.8


1. Requirement: General


2. Implementation Specification Section number: General


3. Criticality: Major


4. Comments/justifications for changes: Change request 08-114 to GML (Deprecate GML components that were immature or innappropriate, https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=29333) requests that value objects are deprecated in GML and SWE Common is used instead. This CR has not been discussed yet in the GML SWG, but instead of GML importing SWE Common to use the abstract data components and SWE Common imports GML to extend value objects, a cleaner separation might be considered by the SWE Common and GML SWGs, e.g. by moving value objects out of GML as suggested by 08-114.


PART B.9


1. Requirement: n/a


2. Implementation Specification Section number: 7.5 and others


3. Criticality: Major


4. Comments/justifications for changes: The need for encoding methods as classes is unclear as is the relationship with ISO 19118. This should be clarified. In general, it should be considered to describe encoding rules in conformance with ISO 19118.


PART B.10


1. Requirement: n/a


2. Implementation Specification Section number: 8.2.1


3. Criticality: Major


4. Comments/justifications for changes: It is unclear whether the differences between AbstractSWE/AbstractSWEIdentifiable and AbstractGML (e.g. differences in multiplicities of @gml:id and name) are the result of different scopes or if a harmonisation is appropriate. This should be clarified.


PART B.11


1. Requirement: n/a


2. Implementation Specification Section number: 7.2.3


3. Criticality: Minor


4. Comments/justifications for changes: AbstractDataComponent.updatable may not be applicable in all cases, so it should not have a default value. 


PART B.12


1. Requirement: n/a


2. Implementation Specification Section number: Clauses 7, 8


3. Criticality: Minor


4. Comments/justifications for changes: UnitReference is used in the conceptual model, but does not seem to be specified. In the XML encoding, it is unclear why the type gml:UomIdentifier is not used.


PART B.13


1. Requirement: General


2. Implementation Specification Section number: General


3. Criticality: Major


4. Comments/justifications for changes: Not all URNs used in the document have been registered with the OGC NA.


-- 
Clemens Portele
portele at interactive-instruments.de
+49 228 9141073 (office)
+49 151 15298497 (mobile)

interactive instruments Gesellschaft für Software-Entwicklung mbH
Trierer Str. 70-72, 53115 Bonn, Germany
Geschäftsführer: Reinhard Erstling, Karla Hinzer, Clemens Portele, Bernd Weidner
Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 3872



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/attachments/20100412/cb511b97/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the Requests mailing list