[OSGeo-Discuss] Geomajas Geometry Project [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Pieter De Graef
pieter.degraef at geosparc.com
Thu Jul 14 00:22:29 PDT 2011
Thanks for your insights guys.
I have also noticed that a lot of Java based projects use the JTS
library for geometries, while this library does not really follow any
specs (afaik). Do you guys feel that this is becoming a problem? I'm
asking this because there is also a JTS4GWT project out there.
On 07/14/2011 01:42 AM, Bruce Bannerman wrote:
> Pieter,
>
> I agree with Jody.
>
> I'm seeing increasing demand for clients that can utilise vector data
> constrained by an application schema.
>
> Europe is probably most advanced in this work with Inspire.
>
> In Australia we have a lot of work currently at research and at
> implementation stage trying to work with Simple Features 1 (aka
> Complex Features).
>
> Some examples are WaterML 2.0 and GeoSciML. We will also be looking
> seriously at CSML 3.0.
>
> Bruce Bannerman
>
>
> On 13/07/11 10:52 PM, "Jody Garnett" <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> It is the ISO 19107 specification; the same one that lurks behind
> GML Ready to leap out from under a surface and foist trans finite
> set on an unsuspecting world. It is worth while getting the ISO
> 19107 document (ie pay for it) as it is much easier to read and
> follow then learning this information second hand.
>
> We had a brief code sprint with deegree (compatible LGPL license)
> in order to see if multiple project would be interested in
> attacking the problem. GeoAPI was the first attempt (which has now
> been released last month), we have a couple of implementations in
> GeoTools (mostly ports or wrappers of JTS). deegree has an
> implementation that is closer to the GML constructs etc....
>
> If you are interested in pursuing this I recommend talking to
> Tisham who has been more active research. I am afraid I am
> interested in using a Geometry library and enthusiasm goes as far
> as setting one up with a good design so that it can be completed
> successfully.
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 13 July 2011 at 9:54 PM, Pieter De Graef wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Jody,
>
> that's the GeoApi specification no?
>
> At first we would be using it on the GWT client we where
> hoping to also include curves, as those can be directly drawn
> in SVG/VML. At a later stage we could switch the backend to
> make use of it as well.
>
> Jody, you have been looking into creating you own Geometry
> library for some time now I understand. How would you approach
> this? I was hoping to start with something simple, that can
> grow at it's own pace. Important for me is that I can use the
> same objects on both client and server (meaning Java with some
> GWT restrictions).
>
> I am also afraid to be re-inventing the wheel, but using 2
> different libraries on client and server would be a shame when
> using GWT...
>
>
> 2011/7/13 Jody Garnett <_jody.garnett at gmail.com_>
>
>
> There is a third model; the ISO19107 model that deals
> with a few more things; it is however object oriented in
> nature....
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 13 July 2011 at 6:36 PM, Pieter De Graef wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> for the Geomajas project, we are looking into
> separating the Geometry functionality into an
> independent project. In other words, I am talking
> about a Geometry project for the Web. This code would
> be written in Java for GWT and thus be available on
> Java backends as well as client environments (we
> intend to add a JavaScript wrapper around the GWT code).
>
> Now the problem that I'm facing here, is which model
> to follow....
>
> On one hand there is the Simple Feature Specification
> which is clearly an Object Oriented model with the
> advantage that it is well known but is also more
> difficult to implement the JavaScript wrapper around.
>
> On the other hand we could follow a service based
> model (more like SFS for SQL) which is easier to get
> up and running, easier to create a JavaScript wrapper
> for and easier to translate into web services.
>
> As it's difficult for us to chose and as it's a pretty
> crucial decision for the future of the Geomajas
> project, I as wondering how you guys feel about this.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Pieter De Graef
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> _Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> _Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> _Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--
Pieter De Graef
Community Manager
GeoSparc nv.
http://www.geosparc.com/
Chairman of the Geomajas project
http://www.geomajas.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20110714/494b9fc0/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Discuss
mailing list