[tdwg-tapir] OGC standards and TAPIR

Javier de la Torre jatorre at gmail.com
Tue Nov 29 17:18:38 CET 2005

No, the data does not have to be georeferenced.
And with GML 3 seems that you can do a lot of crazy stuff relating  
things inside a document...


On 29/11/2005, at 15:51, Döring, Markus wrote:

> Hi,
> some stupid question regarding WFS. Does all feature data in WFS  
> need to be geo referenced? If so, then this is probably the biggest  
> drawback as taxon data usually isnt and even a lot of our  
> observations or specimens arent at least not properly referenced.  
> But I guess you can share purely non geographic information as well?
> Markus
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tapir- 
> bounces at lists.tdwg.org] Im Auftrag von Javier privat
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. November 2005 15:00
> An: tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
> Betreff: Re: [tdwg-tapir] OGC standards and TAPIR
> Hi all,
> Do not misunderstand me. I did not want to mean that it could be a  
> good idea to join the OGC and use their standards.
> I am in a parallel discussion with someone from the OGC community  
> and I wanted to have some arguments...
> In projects like Geoserver and in deegree (open source  
> implementations of WFS) they have to deal with the same problems we  
> have of mapping relational databases to user schemas (that is GML  
> application schemas for them). It would be great to be able to  
> share code and ideas with them, but I know this may be more work  
> than not contact at all... They have already some OS libraries,  
> like Geotools, for dealing with OGC protocols, in the same way we  
> are going to create libraries for TAPIR.
> Being involved in bigger communities like this one could benefit  
> us, right now there is no one apart of us interested in our  
> software. But again I am not sure if this would not actually mean  
> more work and less flexibility... and in any case we are probably  
> too deep in our things to consider something like this, so I do not  
> want to open this discussion and better concentrate in finishing  
> what we have.
> Just for your knowledge I have to say that I think we are more  
> advance than Geoserver, at least, in solving the mapping problem :)  
> Just for you to feel better jeje.
> Javier.
> On 28/11/2005, at 17:47, Roger Hyam wrote:
>> Before we jump in bed with GML (which I have been in favour of in the
>> past) it is worth looking at the other side.
>> This is an interesting article/opinion on GML:
>> http://www.mapbureau.com/gml/
>> And somewhere down this page is a blog by a guy talking to Ron Lake
>> about getting RDF stuff in GML or visa versa which makes good  
>> reading.
>> http://danbri.org/words/category/general/
>> If we think about integration of technologies then it seems to me  
>> that
>> we want to be able to plug into as many other domains as possible. If
>> some one wants to pass information around about people or  
>> buildings or
>> DNA  along side herbarium specimen data then we should not make up a
>> schema for it the user should be able to use any of a whole bunch of
>> widely acceptable, cross domain ontologies/ vocabularies. They should
>> pick the one most suitable to them.
>> If we go with pure GML then we may end up having to invent or port
>> things to it that aren't of interest to the geographic community.
>> GML may be a bunch of cartographers trying to invent their own
>> semantic web. GML applications may be nearly as far away from  
>> plugging
>> in to "everything else" as we are.
>> So maybe a one night stand or an open marriage but not total
>> commitment unless we can see a path to more generic W3C standards  
>> - is
>> what I'm thinking at the moment.
>> All the best,
>> Roger
>> Javier de la Torre wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> I am still sending emails with these guys working with OGC standards
>>> and some times I have difficulties to explain why we are not using
>>> WFS for sharing our data. I check at the report from Renato and
>>> Markus and did not find explicit reasons, but I will try to put  
>>> mines
>>> and please let me know if you find other reasons why do you think  
>>> WFS
>>> is not the way to go... For sure I do not mean WFS as it is right
>>> now, but extending WFS to meet our needs.
>>> -OGC is a big consortium and it would be difficult to get our needs
>>> inserted in the standards. So if no one is going to worry about how
>>> we extend why should we worry about  following them.
>>> -With WFS we would have to adapt our schemas to GML application
>>> schemas (that is substitution groups and we have to extend
>>> AbstractFeautureType). We would not like to have to change our
>>> standards described in XML schemas.
>>> -Standards like SDD can not make use of GML, mainly because WFS is a
>>> service for retrieving features of one single thing and not the
>>> relations between them.
>>> Do you agree with that or you want to add more reasons?
>>> Thanks.
>>> Javier.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tdwg-tapir mailing list
>>> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
>>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir_lists.tdwg.org
>> --
>> -------------------------------------
>> Roger Hyam
>> Technical Architect
>> Taxonomic Databases Working Group
>> -------------------------------------
>> http://www.tdwg.org
>> roger at tdwg.org
>> +44 1578 722782
>> -------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir_lists.tdwg.org

More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list