[mapguide-internals] Review RFC 108 - support Watermark

[Tom Fukushima]

Hi All,

I agree with Jason, Jackie, Trevor,... that SymbolDefinition resources should be supported. But I don't think that means we can't also support DWF symbols. So I think it should be fine to support DWF now and then not exempt ourselves from supporting SymbolDefinitions in the future. (I'm assuming that the ADSK team that is working on this has weighed using DWF symbols and SymbolDefinitions already and has decided on DWF symbols, and only has the development resources for that right now.)  Let me say though, that I'm not that keen on propagating the use of DWF symbols in MGOS, and if we had a WYSIWYG symbol definition editor somewhere I would be all for SymbolDefinitions everywhere.

I wish that the watermark resource could just refer to a DWF Symbol library instead of attaching it as DWF symbol data, but I guess this might create a pretty unusable UI.

Buddy, I would like to see what the changes to the MapDefinition will be for this (XML is API and needs to be documented in the RFC).  Please add this to the RFC.

Please also provide the watermark resource schema.

Jason, I was also wondering why a new resource is required, but after thinking about it, I think that it will make maintaining a bunch of Maps and WMS layers simpler.  Just tweak one place and all other places are adjusted. That said, maybe it could be made possible to also allow for inlining the watermark specification into the MapDefinition.  If we only had development resources for doing one or the other right now, I think I would pick using a separate resource; no strong preference here though.

Thanks
Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Trevor Wekel
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 12:54 PM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] Review RFC 108 - support Watermark

Hi Buddy,

I agree with Jason and Jackie.

We should be using and referencing a SymbolDefinition resource in the new "WaterMark" resource.  This provides better flexibility for defining the watermark.  The SymbolDefinition is a XML document.  Our end users can create and customize this by hand.  A DWF-based watermark could lead to vendor lock in since DWF editing support is less common.  As Jackie mentioned, Maestro does not support DWF.

It might be worthwhile to investigate how SymbolDefinition can support watermarking.  For example, the SymbolDefinition "Image" can be an inline base64 encoded PNG image with the width and height defined in mm and the x and y coordinates in symbol space also defined in mm.  I suspect the "WaterMark" resource may only need to specify where to put the symbol (top right, bottom left, etc - ie, define a "point feature" for the symbol) and then reference the SymbolDefinition.

To support WMS, the LayerDefinition will need to support a "WaterMark" reference.  Our WMS implementation knows nothing about "maps" so the watermark information must be contained in the LayerDefinition.  Maestro, MapGuide Studio, and AutoCAD Map will need to write this information as part of "WMS publishing".

Support for multiple watermarks on the same map would also be good.  This is hinted at by the "WaterMarkList" in MgMap.  Not all data served by MapGuide will come from the same source.  Only specific data sources / layers would require the map to be watermarked.  The complete "map" watermark could be the collection of the defined watermarks from the MapDefinition and all referenced LayerDefinitions.  For example, if Autodesk was serving a Navteq layer on the web, the MapDefinition could define "(c) Autodesk" as text and Navteq layer could define the "(c) Navteq" so you'd end up with

(c) Autodesk
(c) Navteq

Watermarked in the final output image.  This is a bit strange but it might help customers comply with data licensing requirements and still give them the ability to "mark" everything they serve with their own brand.

Regards,
Trevor


-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
Sent: July 30, 2010 9:42 AM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] Review RFC 108 - support Watermark

I agree with Jackie's comment about not using DWF.

Is there any way that we could use the SymbolDefinition (I think; whatever advanced stylization is) resource instead of creating a new one for watermark?  There would be some constraints like device space only, and the MapDefinition would be responsible for defining placement.

I really don't like the idea of updating the LayerDefinition headers when the MapDefinition is changed.  Layer to Map can be a Many:Many relationship. I think that the watermark information should be manually maintained on each layer as part of the WMS metadata UI, like the rest of the WMS information. This is a client implementation detail though I think, as it sounds like you're just talking about expanding the LayerDefinition metadata rather than walking the Layer-> Map dependency at render time.

Jason

On 2010-07-30, Buddy Hu <Buddy.Hu at autodesk.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please review the RFC 108 - support Watermark.
> Link: https://trac.osgeo.org/mapguide/wiki/MapGuideRfc108
>
> Please feel free to add your comments!
>
> Regards,
> -Buddy
> _______________________________________________
> mapguide-internals mailing list
> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
>
_______________________________________________
mapguide-internals mailing list
mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals