<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Hi There,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the your document. Couple of comments I had when
regarding the first part of the RFC (does not include the language
issue):<br>
<br>
- if the goal is to affect the wms part of MapSever, would it be
better to use wms related mechanism and metadata to address this? I
am thinking for example of mechanisms used for grouping layers by
setting the wms_layer_group metadata. <strong></strong> <br>
It obviously does not do all that is needed but I like the fact that
It does not introduce new concepts of hierarchy and keywords in
MapServer core and development is constrained to the wms module.
Can similar approach make sense or can the wms_layer_group be
extended to address the problem? <br>
<br>
- assuming that we have the possibility to virtually combine layers,
would you see a need to have a new layer type? From what I can see
the layer type is not used much except in DescribeLayer to allow the
service to advertise either a wfs or wcs link to the wms layer.<br>
<br>
- there is also something that is a bit unclear to me is how we
should address attributes for these combined (grouped) layers: if I
have several low level (MapServer level) layers with different
schemas, how would a user effectively describe the layer and do
things like GetMap request with an SLD that has a filter encoding
(attributes)? Should we assume a common set of attributes?<br>
<br>
- Related to the issue above, would you expect the DescribeLayer
operation to provide one feature type or several feature types for
combined layer? Would wfs module need to be aware of the
grouping/hierarchy?<br>
<br>
- Note that I agree with you that a key component is to be able to
address the hiding/layers in OGC need mentioned in your document
regardless of the approach taken to build hierarchy<br>
<br>
Hopefully this can lead to some discussions on this initiative.<br>
<br>
Thanks again.<br>
<br>
best regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
On 03/11/2010 9:23 AM, Yewondwossen Assefa wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4CD1623B.2020404@dmsolutions.ca" type="cite">Sorry
for the delay on this. I will review and comment by the end of the
week. We can then then turn your document into an RFC if
appropriate and go from there.
<br>
<br>
best regards,
<br>
<br>
On 03/11/2010 4:23 AM, tellett wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi all, thanks for the comments so far.
Perhaps we're jumping the gun a
<br>
little here but it seems that we haven't had too much firm
interest in this
<br>
yet, although I appreciate its only been out there for just over
a week.
<br>
Because we need these changes fairly quickly (to be in place
ideally by
<br>
March 2011) we're willing to finance some development on this
and contribute
<br>
some development time ourselves. Of course the funding does
depend on how
<br>
many hours we're looking at.
<br>
<br>
Currently, we see the changes needed as overlays with only some
access
<br>
mechanisms needed to the core routines, therefore any changes
made would not
<br>
‘break’ mapserver. If anyone is interested in this, or can
suggest someone
<br>
they think might be interested, please contact Tom Ellett von
Brasch at
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Thomas.Ellett@statkart.no">Thomas.Ellett@statkart.no</a>
<br>
<br>
Best Regards
<br>
<br>
Tom
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Assefa Yewondwossen
Software Analyst
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:yassefa@dmsolutions.ca">yassefa@dmsolutions.ca</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.dmsolutions.ca/">http://www.dmsolutions.ca/</a>
Phone: (613) 565-5056 (ext 14)
Fax: (613) 565-0925
----------------------------------------------------------------
</pre>
</body>
</html>