WFS 1.1

[Kralidis,Tom [Burlington]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bart van den Eijnden (OSGIS) [mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl] 
> Sent: 06 February, 2007 3:31 PM
> To: Kralidis,Tom [Burlington]
> Cc: MAPSERVER-DEV at LISTS.UMN.EDU
> Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-DEV] WFS 1.1
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> I think this is a good analysis, it shows you're more 
> familiar with the
> 1.1 spec than me :-)
> 
> I think the major thing is to get a proper WFS 1.1 
> GetCapabilities in there.
> 
> Wrt the SRSNAME parameter, I believe Mapserver can already 
> reproject as a WFS, but ofcourse this is now setup using 
> METADATA (wfs_srs).
> 

Right.  This would involve MapServer being able to reproject based on
client request, like WMS does with SRS, i.e.:

http://host/t?service=WFS&version=1.1.0&request=GetFeature&typename=foo&
srs=EPSG:42304

> MAXFEATURES is already in Mapserver WFS 1.0 AFAIK, but it 
> only gets evaluated after all the data has been retrieved ....
> 

Yes, it's available from the .map file configuration end?  I was
referring to the client being able to pass, i.e.:

http://host/t?service=WFS&version=1.1.0&request=GetFeature&typename=foo&
maxfeatures=8

...which, AFAIK, is not currently supported.


> Best regards,
> Bart
> 
> Kralidis,Tom [Burlington] schreef:
> >  
> >   
> >> is anybody planning on adding WFS 1.1 to Mapserver WFS? GML3 is in 
> >> place, I've verified it can be read by ArcGIS 9.2 as a GML 
> file, so 
> >> we are missing a large potential market because we don't 
> support WFS 
> >> 1.1 (ArcGIS only supports WFS 1.1 and not 1.0).
> >>
> >> I am thinking of only adding a 1.1 GetCapabilities 
> interface, not any 
> >> of the new operations of WFS 1.1. GetFeature for 1.1 can 
> default to 
> >> OUTPUTFORMAT=GML3.
> >>
> >>     
> >
> > So, based on above, the differences in a MapServer OGC:WFS 
> 1.1.0 impl 
> > would be
> >
> > GetCapabilities
> >
> > - response: an OGC:WFS 1.1.0 style Capabilities document.  The big 
> > difference is the OGC OWS Common adherence.  Note that, now that we 
> > have mapowscommon.c, we can leverage this on output, as it supports 
> > most of the constructs already
> > - do we support the (optional) AcceptFormats, AcceptVersions and 
> > Sections Keywords of this request, which are not covered by 
> WFS 1.0.0?
> > Note that, if we do, we will want to abstract them to 
> mapowscommon.c, 
> > as this is the MO of forthcoming OGC interface specs
> > - where possible, MIME types: now have to be communicated as 
> > mime_type; subtype (i.e. <Value>text/xml; subtype=gml/3.1.1</Value>
> >
> > DescribeFeatureType
> >
> > - REQUIRES a GML3 output (which we already support)
> > - output format MIME type: text/xml; subtype=gml/3.1.1 MUST be 
> > supported.  Other additional formats are allowed
> >
> > GetFeature
> > - optional SRSNAME parameter now allowed, which allows for 
> one to ask 
> > for data in a given SRS (hence reprojection).  Would be helpful
> > - optional allow the WFS client to set MAXFEATURES value (which 
> > could/would override the MAP/WEB/METADATA/wfs_maxfeatures, if the 
> > value is LOWER)
> > - optional allow the WFS client to send SORTBY parameter would be 
> > useful for sorting results on response
> >
> > Note: this analysis omits OPTIONAL features which I think are not 
> > worth implementing, etc.
> >
> > Other comments here w.r.t implementation?
> >
> >
> >   
> >> I would be willing to help out with it.
> >>
> >> Anybody interested in helping out?
> >>     
> >
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> 
> --
> Bart van den Eijnden
> OSGIS, Open Source GIS
> bartvde at osgis.nl
> http://www.osgis.nl
> 
>