[mapserver-dev] RE: INSPIRE compliancy - A request for comments on a possible RFC

[Yewondwossen Assefa]

Hi There,

Thanks for the your document. Couple of comments I had when  regarding 
the first part of the RFC (does not include the language issue):

  - 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. **
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?

- 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.

- 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?

- 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?

  - 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

Hopefully this can lead to some discussions on this initiative.

Thanks again.

best regards,


On 03/11/2010 9:23 AM, Yewondwossen Assefa wrote:
> 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.
>
> best regards,
>
> On 03/11/2010 4:23 AM, tellett wrote:
>> Hi all, thanks for the comments so far. Perhaps we're jumping the gun a
>> little here but it seems that we haven't had too much firm interest 
>> in this
>> yet, although I appreciate its only been out there for just over a week.
>> Because we need these changes fairly quickly (to be in place ideally by
>> March 2011) we're willing to finance some development on this and 
>> contribute
>> some development time ourselves. Of course the funding does depend on 
>> how
>> many hours we're looking at.
>>
>> Currently, we see the changes needed as overlays with only some access
>> mechanisms needed to the core routines, therefore any changes made 
>> would not
>> ‘break’ mapserver. If anyone is interested in this, or can suggest 
>> someone
>> they think might be interested, please contact Tom Ellett von Brasch at
>> Thomas.Ellett at statkart.no
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Tom
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Assefa Yewondwossen
Software Analyst

Email: yassefa at dmsolutions.ca
http://www.dmsolutions.ca/

Phone: (613) 565-5056 (ext 14)
Fax:   (613) 565-0925
----------------------------------------------------------------


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-dev/attachments/20101108/e4a320e3/attachment.html