[tdwg-tapir] conceptual binding
Javier de la Torre
jatorre at gmail.com
Thu Mar 2 17:11:03 CET 2006
Did I understand this incorrectly?
The change in the mapping would only be qualifying concepts in the
path attribute not in the concept ids.
I think we agree on that the concept ids does not have anything to do
with XML schema or Xpaths no? Is just "by coincide" that we are using
On 3/3/06, Renato De Giovanni <renato at cria.org.br> wrote:
> Hi Markus,
> This is really good news for the PyWrapper!
> Now concerning your question, I think we should really try to avoid
> defining concepts with compound XML schemas. It's a lot cleaner and
> more elegant using gcp#accession/FullScientificName to map local
> databases and to use in filters. As you said, the WFS response would
> just be one of the possible output models making use of the concepts.
> The real xpaths to WFS elements (including namespaces) would only be
> used in the output model mapping section:
> <concept id="gcp#accession/FullScientificName"/>
> Best Regards,
> On 28 Feb 2006 at 11:38, "Döring, Markus" wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I recently added support for schema imports in pywrapper mainly to support multiple namespaces in the repsonse.
> > Me (and Javier) wanted to allow something like this:
> > <wfs:FeatureCollection
> > xmlns:wfs="http://www.opengis.net/wfs"
> > xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
> > xmlns:gcp="http://www.ipgri.org/schemas/gcp_passport_gml/1.0">
> > <gml:featureMember>
> > <gcp:accession fid="accession.12">
> > <gcp:GermplasmID>12</gcp:GermplasmID>
> > <gcp:FAOInstituteCode>ES</gcp:FAOInstituteCode>
> > <gcp:FullScientificName>Quercus ilex</gcp:FullScientificName>
> > </gcp:accession>
> > </gml:featureMember>
> > </wfs:FeatureCollection>
> > Here comes my problem:
> > How do we refer to the FullScientificName concept in TAPIR?
> > As a convention for schemas we said to create the fully qualified concept from the namespace and the simple xpath to the element. So somethinkg like this:
> > http://www.opengis.net/wfs#/FeatureCollection/featureMember/accession/FullScientificName
> > A real xpath to that element would of course include several namespaces:
> > /wfs:FeatureCollection/gml:featureMember/gcp:accession/gcp:FullScientificName
> > Could it be that we never need to refer to "compound" concepts anyway? A provider would probably map his db to the GCP schema alone. The WFS response is only the responded view/data model and we would still just use gcp#accession/FullScientificName as the qualified concept in filters. This is also true for our simple extension schemas I think (EFG for ABCD, all extensions for DwC). But arent there other cases?
> > Thanks,
> > Markus
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
More information about the tdwg-tag