[Requests] NGA Comments for GeoServices REST API Candidate Standard

Christian.C.Guthrie at nga.mil Christian.C.Guthrie at nga.mil
Mon Aug 20 10:26:03 EDT 2012


Please find NGA's comments to the GeoServices REST API Candidate Standard below

Chris Guthrie
Standards Implementation Lead
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
571.557.7636

PART A

1. Evaluator: Chris Guthrie

2. Submission: GeoServices REST API Candidate Standard 

PART B

1. Requirement: General 

2. Implementation Specification Section number: General

3. Criticality: Major

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 

JSON is a great output format for web applications; however, the mandated JSON (Java Script Object Notation) output is a perceived weakness.  It limits the clients to web pages running Java Script (aka ECMA-Script).  All of the other OGC standards that we use mandate output of some form of XML - typically GML.  This enables a client-agnostic approach as any Java or C++ program can parse and manipulate the generated XML, as can any web page that uses AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript And Xml).  

PART B

1. Requirement: General 

2. Implementation Specification Section number: GeoServices REST API - Part 4: Feature Service (12-057r1), page 64 Table 36 and page 67 Table 38

3. Criticality: Editorial

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 
Part 4 has misspelled "attachment" as "attachement" in several places, including parameter specifications(attachmentId(s):  The parameters are misspelled:  {attachementId(s)} vice {attachmentId(s)}).  Anyone attempting to implement this standard would be required to accept the misspelled parameter name.

PART B

1. Requirement: General 

2. Implementation Specification Section number: GeoServices REST API - Part 1: Core (12-054r1), page viii

3. Criticality: Minor

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 

There is a loophole in the backward compatibility rules.  The proposed specification seems to imply that backwards compatibility is not certain.  This may just be a disclaimer, but who gets to decide?  OGC?  Vendors?

PART B

1. Requirement: General 

2. Implementation Specification Section number: GeoServices REST API - Part 1: Core (12-054r1), page11 Section 6.2.2

3. Criticality: Editorial

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 

At the beginning of this section, there is an incomplete sentence.  

PART B

1. Requirement: General 

2. Implementation Specification Section number: GeoServices REST API - Part 1: Core (12-054r1), page 20 9.6

3. Criticality: Minor

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 
The order is contrary to other specifications like KML.

PART B

1. Requirement: General 

2. Implementation Specification Section number: GeoServices REST API - Part 1: Core (12-054r1), page 28 Section 11.2

3. Criticality: Minor	

4. Comments/justifications for changes:
Color example is opposite the OGC KML standard and uses RGB vice hexadecimal.  These should be consistent in the OGC family of standards.

PART B

1. Requirement: General 

2. Implementation Specification Section number: GeoServices REST API - Part 4: Feature Service (12-057r1), page 6 Section 7.2.2

3. Criticality: Minor

4. Comments/justifications for changes:
The "FeatureServer" endpoint is required.  Why?  We should be able to modify the endpoint.  Why not "fs" or whatever the implementer chooses?

PART B

1. Requirement: General 

2. Implementation Specification Section number: GeoServices REST API - Part 4: Feature Service (12-057r1), page 21 Table 12

3. Criticality: Major

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 
geometry:  The note that coordinates always use a decimal separator breaks i18n rules.

PART B

1. Requirement: General 

2. Implementation Specification Section number: GeoServices REST API - Part 4: Feature Service (12-057r1), page 21 Table 12

3. Criticality: Major

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 
where:  This has the potential to open up a SQL injection attack.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NGACommentsOnDRAFTOGCRESTSpec_edit.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 26112 bytes
Desc: NGACommentsOnDRAFTOGCRESTSpec_edit.doc
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/attachments/20120820/8445c8c7/attachment-0001.doc>


More information about the Requests mailing list