On 5/4/13 6:21 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Adrian,
Thankyou, I was hoping that someone such as your self with insights into
the standard would explain the details. You email has been a great help.
Cheers.
I'm also hoping that someone will provide a more detailed comparison of
the similarities / differences, to help the rest of the community
understand what is happening.
I have not taken much detailed interest in these services ever since it
became clear that they had no interest in working with the WMS folk and
that nothing could be changed to improve the standard. (They couldn't
even fix dates to be in the unambiguous ISO 8609 format YYYY-MM-DD since
that would break 'backwards compatibility'!)
My understanding is that these services are built on what I call the
"Flat Feature Model" which are Features with single geometries made up
of 2D, linear structures (points, lines, or polygons) and a list of
primitive value attributes (the shapefile data model).
("Simple Features", it turns out, are not so simple; they can only
have a single geometry but that geometry can be multidimensional
and complex while the attributes can be arbitrarily complex and
in various namespaces. So 'Flat Features' are what I used to think
'Simple Features' were.)
There is surely a need for very simple geospatial services which are
limited to the Flat Feature Model. That is why we have all been working
on rewriting the W*S standards in modular form to allow for very simple
implementations while also enabling more complex implementations,
experiments, and easier fixes. The ESRI effort, had it been designed to
help users, could easily have plugged into the efforts going on in the
various W*S groups. Instead, it has so far been a complete drain on my time.
~adrian
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
