<DIV>Dear colleagues</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>as follow up of what Javier suggested to keep in contact with OGC, I also wanted to draw your attention that there is the EU Inspire Initiative : <A href="http://www.ec-gis.org/inspire/">http://www.ec-gis.org/inspire/</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV class=section-header>INSPIRE PROPOSAL </DIV> <DIV><BR>Proposal for a<BR>DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the Community (INSPIRE)<BR>{SEC(2004) 980}<BR>(presented by the Commission)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have subscribed to their mailing list earlier this year. There were not many mails in the begining, but lately I received the outcomes of their first big meeting. As far as I could judge they comply to OGC standards. I might thus be interested to keep an eye on this too ... </DIV> <DIV><U><FONT color=#800080><A
href="http://www.ec-gis.org/inspire/reports.cfm">http://www.ec-gis.org/inspire/reports.cfm</A></FONT></U></DIV> <DIV><U><FONT color=#800080></FONT></U> </DIV> <DIV>Regards</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Pat </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Renato De Giovanni <renato@cria.org.br></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Hello Javier,<BR><BR>We did try to point out some reasons for not using WFS in the <BR>protocol integration report, but I'm not sure if that was explicit <BR>enough. From your list below I believe only the last two reasons are <BR>true.<BR><BR>Remember that one of the reasons for the existence of BioCASe was <BR>that ABCD wanted to be something completely independent (DarwinCore <BR>elements need to extend abstract protocol elements from DiGIR). By <BR>using WFS, ABCD would probably need to be split into one or more
<BR>"feature types" and it would not be independent anymore. This issue <BR>is very well-described in the first link that Roger sent us yesterday <BR>when it talks about composability.<BR><BR>Besides that, what would be the best candidate for a feature in ABCD? <BR>Probably the "unit". And in this case, how could WFS return metadata <BR>about a collection of "unit features" as part of a search response? <BR>Maybe there's some way to do this by extending the WFS protocol, and <BR>I'm not sure how much work would be involved. But that's something we <BR>haven't even considered during the integration process. We mainly <BR>concentrated on the possibility of using WFS exactly as it was.<BR><BR>For other standards like SDD and TCS I really can't imagine people <BR>changing the schemas into small pieces of data and making all of them <BR>inherit from GML features - unless there's some very strong reason <BR>for that.<BR><BR>Another important difference at that time was that WFS couldn't
<BR>produce custom structures, as it was possible with DiGIR and now with <BR>the optional custom output models in TAPIR.<BR><BR>I think these were the main reasons (including the absence of <BR>inventories, as Markus mentioned).<BR><BR>Anyway, I think it's important to have this kind of interaction with <BR>them and to always keep checking if there's any possibility to better <BR>integrate the two initiatives and to share code, knowledge, etc.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR>--<BR>Renato<BR><BR>On 28 Nov 2005 at 16:39, Javier de la Torre wrote:<BR><BR>> Dear all,<BR>> <BR>> I am still sending emails with these guys working with OGC standards <BR>> and some times I have difficulties to explain why we are not using <BR>> WFS for sharing our data. I check at the report from Renato and <BR>> Markus and did not find explicit reasons, but I will try to put mines <BR>> and please let me know if you find other reasons why do you think WFS <BR>> is not the way to go... For sure I
do not mean WFS as it is right <BR>> now, but extending WFS to meet our needs.<BR>> <BR>> -OGC is a big consortium and it would be difficult to get our needs <BR>> inserted in the standards. So if no one is going to worry about how <BR>> we extend why should we worry about following them.<BR>> <BR>> -With WFS we would have to adapt our schemas to GML application <BR>> schemas (that is substitution groups and we have to extend <BR>> AbstractFeautureType). We would not like to have to change our <BR>> standards described in XML schemas.<BR>> <BR>> -Standards like SDD can not make use of GML, mainly because WFS is a <BR>> service for retrieving features of one single thing and not the <BR>> relations between them.<BR>> <BR>> Do you agree with that or you want to add more reasons?<BR>> <BR>> Thanks.<BR>> <BR>> Javier.<BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>tdwg-tapir mailing
list<BR>tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org<BR>http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir_lists.tdwg.org<BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR></DIV><p>
<hr size=1> <a href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=36035/*http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/">Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.</a>