That would be great.
Actually the best would be to have the TDWG semantics represented in several outputmodels for TAPIR.
But, again, being able to produce GML is nice but you loose a lot of funcionaity if you dont serve them as WFS. But because PyWrapper and WASABI has plans to implement WFS too then it will be great...
Good luck with your work!
Javi.
On 8/3/06, Roger Hyam roger@tdwg.org wrote:
Javier,
That's good news. What I am thinking is that if a central 'Semantic Hub' can represent TDWG semantics as GML schemas then they could be used by TAPIR. I think it would be quite simple to produce 'fake' GML schemas specifically tuned for TAPIR to use as well.
I'll take it to the next stage and then we could maybe work together to produce the most useful schemas for TAPIR.
Thanks,
Roger
Javier de la Torre wrote:
Yes, we tried and it works.
Thats the reason why we had to adapt for multiple namespaces some time ago.
But you can not specify the typical GML app schema, I had to do the same as with RDF, you have to create a fake schema that simulates it. But we learnt some time ago that this legal :)
Also consider that being able to produce a valid GML app schema as output doesnt mean TAPIR has WFS support!
But is a good begining :)
Cheers.
On 8/3/06, Roger Hyam roger@tdwg.org wrote:
Hi Tapir Guys,
One quick question: Will TAPIR be able to produce valid GML as an output model. i.e. if I specify a simple GML application schema as a output model should it work? Has anyone done this?
I presume that if it works as an output model I can also use it as a conceptual schema and just ask for the default mappings.
Thanks,
Roger
--
Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group
http://www.tdwg.org roger@tdwg.org
+44 1578 722782
tdwg-tapir mailing list tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
--
Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group
http://www.tdwg.org roger@tdwg.org
+44 1578 722782