Hi Ben: > I am not so sure. The GF_PropertyType in ISO 19109 is an abstract > supertype of GF_AttributeType. I think this means that, if GeoAPI > represents the ISO Feature Model, a Feature with complex properties > should have them as immediate properties, not enclosed in wrapper > complex properties like gml:FeaturePropertyType.
That is required in order to allow for associations. We do not have a separate accessor for attributes and associations - they are returned as a single list of properties. >> Can you be more specific - I am not sure what I am looking at in >> these UML models. > > In the UML for GeologicUnit, you can see that a GeologicUnit has > 0..* CompositionPart. Apologies for my ASCII UML: > > GeologicUnit <>--- 1..* CompositionPart > > In GML (the GeoSciML application schema), a GeologicUnitType has > 0..* CompositionPartPropertyType properties, each of which contains > a CompositionPartType: > http://www.geosciml.org/geosciml/2.0/xsd/geologicUnit.xsd > > In UML, the XML looks like: > > GeologicUnit <>--- 1..* CompositionPartProperty <>--- 1 > CompositionPart > > and the encoded XML has XPaths like this: > > gsml:GeologicUnit/gsml:composition/gsml:CompositionPart > > It seems to me that in GML an enclosing type has been introduced as > an artifact to ensure that every complex property contains an > element that gives its type information. To me this seems to be an > encoding artifact that should be created at encoding time, not > stored in our GeoAPI representation of the data. That does not seem too strange. In this case I am guessing that GeologicUnit is a bit dynamic in nature; can probably form a hierarchy so they are needing to provide type information as they go to account for the dynamic nature of their problem? It is unclear to me if this is a problem to be fixed; or a comment on how interesting the GeologicUnity is? Perhaps I am missing something? > GML is only a representation of the GeoAPI model. Yep. > In short, should GeoAPI represent the General Feature Model or the > GML encoding? Or am I missing something? The "General Feature Model" is kind of defined by a couple specifications in both ISO and OGC land. GML has softened the general feature model a small bit; but general practice of GML has softened it even more. Our task is to bring things back the other way. Can we refine what we have here based real world use - ie your experience here and now. Jody ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
