Am 05.09.2010 05:51, schrieb Scott Crosby:
This schema is more expressive than the current XML which only
includes a 'source' field in the<bounds> tag. Should I alter my
schema to have just one field, 'source'? Or define a mapping between
this schema and current XML? If I define a mapping, any suggestions as
to what mapping to define?
I'd suggest to keep your schema, because it's easy to add those new tags
to the xml schema but not the other way round. And in general more meta
data is always better, if it's not too expensive (which it isnÄt in your
schema).
The only thing I could imagine to be even better is a key/value list
instead of those fixed fields. This way we could gather the same
flexibility as we currently have with the xml.
My format allows non-geographic metadata, such as username, version
numbers, and last-modified datestamps to be omitted when generating a
binary file. This results in significant space savings. However, when
parsing, Osmosis expects these fields to be supplied. When the
metadata is omitted, I use '-1' and 'now' as as the default. Other
suggested defaults?
I'd set the username to an empty string and the ints (version, userid)
to zero. That would be the natural default. now for the datestamp is
okay, but as far as I remember osmosis can handle entities without
parsing the date, so you could supply any string in this case.
Finally, anyone have any suggestions or comments on the schema or the
rest of the design?
I really like to have a well defined binary scheme, packaged into nice
tasks. Thank you for that.
Peter
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
