Dear Kevin,
During the last year I was involved in a project which used some of the OGC SWE (sensor web enablement) standards. Based on this experience I would say using OGC standards is not an easy thing at all. The main reason is that OGC specifications generally are quite 'generic' and require to specify what they call application profiles which require considerable efforts. What I found worst with OGC standards was that they perfectly enable you to XML describe any thinkable metadata but when it comes for example to deliver DATA via O&M you are left alone and you can indeed deliver anything you would like to as long it fits in a result element of type "any". As a result clients will perfectly be able to parse requests and metadata but probably fail to handle the 'real' output, (the data) when it come from outside your community even if the same 'standard' is used.
From what I have seen in the WPS specification this is also true for this
standard. You can nicely encode your requests etc but when it comes to deliver the output of such a service the specs say:
10.3.1 Execute response parameters The form of the response to an Execute operation request depends on the value of the ResponseForm parameter in the execute request. In the most primitive case, [...] RawDataOutput
So it seems that also WPS focuses on metadata and you would have to specify (standardise ;) !!) the output format yourself.
best regards, Robert
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Kevin Richards < RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz> wrote:
I have been pondering taxon name matching type services lately…
I wonder if the OGC WPS (Web Processing Service) would make a good platform for integrating the various name matching algorithms that are being worked on lately.
I was imagining something like a web interface where you can go to and view a list of the available algorithms and select different algorithms in different orders to get the best set of match results your own list of name strings/data.
If everyone set up their algorithms as a WPS then this interface would call each WPS in the appropriate order until then end of the configured workflow path.
UI something like (in diagram):
Where the bottom part is configurable by the user. Each box being a representation of a WPS service for doing the match.
Any thoughts?
Perhaps something that could be discussed at TDWG?
One issue would be how to define/specify the list of names to match against – then when you pass the processing of a match routine how would it access the names list to match?? Perhaps it could all be based on one server and people could submit algorithm/WPS services to it?
Hmmmm, will keep dreaming …
Kevin
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
