[Requests] Comments to 15-044r3, OGC® Web Coverage Service Interface Standard - Coverage Collection Extension

Dimitri Sarafinof Dimitri.Sarafinof at ign.fr
Tue Apr 19 04:28:42 EDT 2016


Part A to be completed once.  Iterate Part B as needed.


PART A


1. Evaluator:
        Dimitri Sarafinof (Dimitri.Sarafinof at ign.fr)

2. Submission: [15-044r3, OGC® Web Coverage Service Interface Standard - Coverage Collection Extension]



PART B


1. Requirement: [General, Foreword]


2. Implementation Specification Section number: [Foreword]


3. Criticality: [Editorial]


4. Comments/justifications for changes: Add version of the standard here to enhance the readability of the document
WCS Core 2.0, GMLCOV 1.0 ?




PART B


1. Requirement: [General, #2]


2. Implementation Specification Section number: [2]


3. Criticality: [Major]


4. Comments/justifications for changes: This is a list of conformance classes. Which conformance classes are mandatory to be supported ?
1) Are they all mandatory ?
2) Precise the link between conformance classes (for example, this is a hierarchy between the protocol-binding and get-kvp and post-xml which does not appear here).



PART B


1. Requirement: [General, #5.5]


2. Implementation Specification Section number: [5.5]


3. Criticality: [Minor]


4. Comments/justifications for changes: UML notation references TAN as defined in WCS, GML. Maybe add GMLCOV (or CIS here?)



PART B


1. Requirement: [General, 7]


2. Implementation Specification Section number: [7]


3. Criticality: [Major]


4. Comments/justifications for changes: The document references gmlcov 1.0 in the normative reference.
How this data model will work with the future CIS model ?



PART B


1. Requirement: [General, 7.1.1]


2. Implementation Specification Section number: [7.1.1]


3. Criticality: [Major]


4. Comments/justifications for changes: On figure 1,
- 1) Why not merging OfferedCollection and CoverageCollection  (into a OfferedCoverageCollection) and have a selflink on it.
This would be cleaner and align with the existing pattern.

- 2) Why limit the ows:BoundingBox to [0..1] and not [0..*]



PART B


1. Requirement: [General, 8.2.1]


2. Implementation Specification Section number: [8.2.1]


3. Criticality: [Major]


4. Comments/justifications for changes: On figure 2,
- 1) Why the content of the CoverageCollectionsSummary is not aligned with the CoverageSummary
For example, why no BoundingBox ? and metadata ?

- 2) definition are inconsistent here
Why using different mechanisms: "inheritance" for ServiceMetadataExtension and "refrence mechanism" for the CoverageCollectionSummary ?



PART B


1. Requirement: [General, 8.3.2]


2. Implementation Specification Section number: [8.3.2]


3. Criticality: [Major]


4. Comments/justifications for changes: On figure 3, what is the purpose of trimming the DescribeCoverageCollectionResponse ?
Add explanation.




PART B


1. Requirement: [General, 8.4.1]


2. Implementation Specification Section number: [8.4.1]


3. Criticality: [Major]


4. Comments/justifications for changes: On figure 4,
- 1) Align ows:BoundingBox cardinality is [0..1] and not [0..*] as for the CoverageSummary ? same comment for ows:WGS84BoundingBox and ows:metadata

- 2) why the ows:Metadata has a different type (ows:asbractMetadata vs ows:MetadataType)



PART B


1. Requirement: [General, 9.1]


2. Implementation Specification Section number: [9.1]


3. Criticality: [Major]


4. Comments/justifications for changes: requirement class (http://www.opengis.net/spec/WCS_service-extension_coveragecollection/1.0/req/covcoll_protocol-binding) references HTTP/Get (KVP binding) and HTTP/POSt XML bindings. Does it mean that a XML/SOAP implementation (not defined here) will not be conformant? this should be clarified.

Add explanation.



PART B


1. Requirement: [General, 9.2.1]


2. Implementation Specification Section number: [9.2.1]


3. Criticality: [Major]


4. Comments/justification for changes : Example says"The following KVP-encoded DescribeCoverageCollection  request addresses service path on server www.service.org at port 8080 retrieves all Coverage Collections" but a coverageId is used in the request
- why a coverageID is used in the example request for DescribeCoverageCollection

please clarify.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/attachments/20160419/1784da5e/attachment.html>


More information about the Requests mailing list