[Requests] GeoService REST API general comments
matthijslaan at b3partners.nl
Sat Aug 18 11:00:33 EDT 2012
Matthijs Laan, B3Partners <matthijslaan at b3partners.nl>
2. Submission: GeoServices REST API
1. Requirement: General
2. Implementation Specification Section number: General
3. Criticality: Major
4. Comments/justifications for changes:
There are numerous problems with the standard and the specification. Some are
already commented on by others, but in addition another non-exhaustive list:
- It does not support cross-origin resource sharing (http:www.w3.org/TR/cors/)
- Export Map does not specify ordering of layers, unlike WMS
- Export Map does not support spatial filtering
- Export Map does not support custom styles (for highlighting for example)
- The Export Map "layerDef" expression is different from not only OGC CQL but
also the "where" parameter for the Query service
- It is a serious flaw that the "where" parameter for the Query service is specified
as only "any legal SQL WHERE clause" without a grammar.
- Separating the spatial query relation and geometry means limited spatial
querying where CQL like "geometry intersects polygon(...) OR other_attribute = ..."
and "geometry intersects polygon(...) and geometry intersects linestring(...)"
are not supported. DWITHIN and BEYOND are not supported either.
- Not supporting response paging is a serious limitation as is the lack of a
- It is apparently the intention to establish a new naming authority for
"urn:ogc:def:crs:gsr" and "urn:ogc:def:uom:gsr" URN's which - if submitted at all -
will only serve to codify the incompatibilities and redundancy with existing
naming authorities. If the naming authority is submitted to OGC-NA it will
have to be seen if it is accepted and will live up to the responsibilities
in ISO 19135 (referenced from OGC 09-046r2) and make any effort to resolve
the noted incompatibilities with other authorities concerning referencing.
Apart from these problems and others, the "12-062r1" document is a lengthy
document trying to provide a justification for the standard. Whether it is
convincing anyone that this standard is a serious effort to promote
interoperability or just an attempt at standardization of a single-vendor
implementation with all its limitations and technological debt is up to the
community to decide.
Our opinion is that this draft standard is be a step backwards for interoperability
and technical progress for the spatial community and efforts are better directed
to improving the WxS standards instead of creating limiting, incompatible,
under-defined and already outdated new standards.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Requests