[tdwg-tapir] Fwd: [wfs-dev] name change
Javier de la Torre
jatorre at gmail.com
Thu Nov 2 23:12:56 CET 2006
Jeje,
Funny. In OGC they are also considering splitting WFS into several
levels of complexity and to not force the use of GML, I wonder when
they are going to start talking about WFS Lite.
Cheers.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Panagiotis (Peter) A. Vretanos" <pvretano at cubewerx.com>
> Date: 2 de noviembre de 2006 20:44:25 GMT+01:00
> To: Raj Singh <rsingh at opengeospatial.org>
> Cc: wfsbasic.users at opengeospatial.org, wfs-dev at opengeospatial.org
> Subject: Re: [wfs-dev] name change
>
> Well,
>
> Not quite a FULL WFS without transactions.
>
> The WFS includes the capabilities and filter capabilities to allow
> servers to declare what the are capable of.
>
> This means that servers can declare that they support very little.
> For
> example, the following filter capabilities:
>
> <ogc:Filter_Capabilities xmlns:ogc="http://www.opengis.net/ogc">
> <ogc:Spatial_Capabilities>
> <ogc:GeometryOperands xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml">
> <ogc:GeometryOperand>gml:Point</ogc:GeometryOperand>
> </ogc:GeometryOperands>
> <ogc:SpatialOperators>
> <ogc:SpatialOperator name="BBOX" />
> </ogc:SpatialOperators>
> </ogc:Spatial_Capabilities/>
> <ogc:Id_Capabilities>
> <ogc:EID />
> </ogc:Id_Capabilities>
> </ogc:Filter_Capabilities>
>
> indicates that this server only supports BBOX on gml:Point types.
>
> So the most complex request you could form (on as single feature type)
> would be something like:
>
> http://www.server.com/wfs/wfs.cgi?
> service=WFS&version=1.1.0&request=GetCapabilities&typeName=myns:Points
> OfInterest&BBOX=10,10,20,20
>
> I would prefer that this work (WFS Simple I mean) be rolled back into
> the WFS specification as a level 0 conformance class rather than
> having
> two independent specifications that do similar things ... even if this
> means making GML a preferred but not mandatory output format for the
> GetFeature operation.
>
> The WFS already allows other formats, other than GML, to be
> supported so
> something like KML is well within the scope of the current spec..
>
> Ciao.
>
> Raj Singh wrote:
>> In the WFS specification the idea of a 'Basic WFS' is mentioned that
>> pertains to a full WFS that is read-only--no transactional support.
>> This is quite different from the intent of this effort, so the
>> working name has been changed to 'WFS Simple'.
>> ---
>> Raj
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> wfs-dev mailing list
>> wfs-dev at opengeospatial.org
>> https://mail.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/wfs-dev
>>
>
> --
> Panagiotis (Peter) A. Vretanos CubeWerx Inc.
> Big Kahuna (Senior Database Developer) http://www.cubewerx.com
> Tel. 416-701-1985 Fax. 416-701-9870 pvretano at cubewerx.com
>
> "If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first
> create the universe." -- Carl Sagan
> _______________________________________________
> wfs-dev mailing list
> wfs-dev at opengeospatial.org
> https://mail.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/wfs-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/attachments/20061102/3dc65555/attachment.html
More information about the tdwg-tag
mailing list