[tdwg-tapir] OGC standards and TAPIR
Roger Hyam
roger at tdwg.org
Tue Nov 29 15:30:14 CET 2005
Javier,
I wasn't meaning to suggest not cooperating with OGC based technologies,
sharing code/applications etc - this would all be great. My comments
were more high level about how we represent our knowledge domain and
that we shouldn't compromise on interoperability. If we were to re-tool
our standards then I am not convinced at the moment (though the jury is
still out) that we should re-tool them to GML.
All the best,
Roger
Javier de la Torre wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
-------------------------------------
Roger Hyam
Technical Architect
Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
http://www.tdwg.org
roger at tdwg.org
+44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/attachments/20051129/4361e058/attachment.html
More information about the tdwg-tag
mailing list