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

[Yewondwossen Assefa]

On 09/11/2010 7:30 AM, tellett wrote:
> Hi Yewondwossen,
>
> Thanks for getting back to us. We're absolutely happy to look at any
> solution so long as it meets our requirements and more importantly the
> INSPIRE requirements. I'll try and answer your questions inline:
>
>
>>> - 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?
>
> Problem with wms_layer_group is that it is not a named layer and therefore
> cannot be called in a getmap of featureinfo request and in addition is only
> constructed in the capabilities document through the kvp name and keywords
> from the sublayers. We need more metadata attached to this layer (same
> amount and options as for a 'normal' mapserver layer) and need it to be a
> named layer. Have found this ticket, don't think anything happened to it,
> but what Bart describes might deliver what we're looking for as well.
> http://trac.osgeo.org/mapserver/ticket/1632
>

Yes ticket #1632 seems  to capture part of what we want to accomplish.   
As I mentioned a solution using using a wms mechanism is more 
appropriate for this. It does not have to be necessarily wms_layer_group 
(to maybe avoid confusion) but similar approach.
Bug 1632 has also identified that we need to deal with attributes.  I 
think putting a restriction on a common set of attributes make sense 
using the gml_include_items (and other similar metadata).  I believe the 
next step is to put the necessary time to define this mechanism properly 
and identify as you have done all the implications on the different wms 
operations. I will start by opening a trac bug 
(http://trac.osgeo.org/mapserver/ticket/3608) that would capture all 
discussions and the goal being the have a final RFC at the end of it.


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

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

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