[Requests] Comments to OpenSearch Geo and Time Extensions (OGC 10-032r7)

Yoshiyuki KUDO y_kudo at restec.or.jp
Tue Dec 10 22:28:03 EST 2013


PART A


1. Evaluator:
        CEOS OpenSearch Project Team (ceos_opensearch at wgiss.ceos.org)
        (rep. Yoshiyuki Kudo (y_kudo at restec.or.jp))

2. Submission: [OpenGIS Project Document Number, Name]
	OpenSearch Geo and Time Extensions (OGC 10-032r7)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART B


1. Requirement: [General, #] 

2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]
9.2.1 OpenSearch Parameters Table 4 (p.13)

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]
Minor

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]
The parameter 'geo:uid' would be a unique identifier of a piece of
inventory. 
As such it should map to an entries' "atom:id" in the response rather
than an "atom:link" (even if it is a URI)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART B


1. Requirement: [General, #] 


2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]
9.2.2 Table 5 (p.14)

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]
Minor (typo)

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]
 "nad"->"and"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART B


1. Requirement: [General, #] 


2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]
 9.3.2 Alternate representations of an entry (p.15)

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]
Minor : Inquery

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]
 
 The sentence:
 
 "To designate the resource that is the source of the information
 provided in the containing element (e.g. original metadata) the value 
 “via” should be used."

is confusing. It's stated that a link of relation ‘alternate’ should
be used to provide a url with an alternative description of the entry.
Then it also says that if it is metadata (I can’t see it being anything
else) that it’s relation should be ‘via’. Can you have multiple
values for a relation?

I see misuse of these rel value (alternate / via / describedBy) in
existing implementations, so more clarification may help.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART B


1. Requirement: [General, #] 


2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]
Table 6 Elements of Search operation response in the atom:feed element
describing the search service (p.16)

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]
Minor 

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]
atom:feed/atom:link[@rel= ‘self‘] needs to be added for Relation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART B


1. Requirement: [General, #] 


2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]
Table 7 Elements of Search operation response in the atom:entry elements
describing each search result (p17)

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]
Minor

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]
atom:entry/atom:link[@rel= ‘alternate‘] needs to be added for Relation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------



More information about the Requests mailing list