[OpenLayers-Dev] GML format - unsupported geometry type: box

Eric Lemoine eric.lemoine at camptocamp.com
Tue Jul 28 14:35:40 EDT 2009

On Monday, July 27, 2009, Paul Dziemiela <paul at dziemiela.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I've been reading this thread with a bit of interest.  From what I read
> gml:Box was deprecated with GML 3 so does this discussion only apply to GML
> 2 parsers or does this discussion extend over into the gml:envelope that
> replaces gml:box?
> From my reading of the specs, the GML 2 Box element was positioned as a
> "primitive geometry type" on the same level as a polygon or point.  However
> the GML 3 Envelope element is not - it's an attribute of a primitive
> geometry.  I don't think you can map your rectangular backyard as a
> gml:envelope and pass it around by itself.  But I think you could do that
> with gml:box.
> So I think you are all debating whether or not a two-point box is a
> legitimate geometry or if not is instead only an attribute of a legitimate
> geometry.  It looks like the GML folks went down this road and decided on
> the latter.
> Cheers,
> Paul

Thanks for these informative comments Paul. I really need to open the
specs, which I will.

François' initial questions related to Format.GML (the format used
internally by the GetFeatureInfo format). This format doesn't target a
specific GML version, so I'm wondering what we should do with it. I
initially thought this parser was being deprecated by the new
versioned GML parser, but I'm confused now that the GetFeatureInfo is
based on it.

Could anyone involved with the GML and GFI formats comment on that?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev-bounces at openlayers.org [mailto:dev-bounces at openlayers.org] On
> Behalf Of Francois Van Der Biest
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:24 AM
> To: Eric Lemoine
> Cc: dev at openlayers.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenLayers-Dev] GML format - unsupported geometry type: box
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Eric
> Lemoine<eric.lemoine at camptocamp.com> wrote:
>> Hi François
>>  I do not really have answers to your questions - I hope others will -
>> but I'd have one comment on what we should do with GML features with a
>> bounding box but without a geometry.
>> I'd be -1 on creating geometries without coordinates and just bounds
>> (option 3), because an OpenLayers geometry's bounds represent the
>> bounds of the geometry's coordinates. I don't like the idea of
>> creating a geometry from the gml:BoundedBy (option 2) either, because
>> gml:BoundedBy and feature.geometry represent two different things -
>> gml:BoundedBy is the feature's bounding box while feature.geometry is
>> the feature's geometry. So, among your options, option 2 is the one
>> that makes the most sense to me. And in addition to option 2 I think
>> we could make the GML format parse the gml:BoundedBy/gml:Box element
>> and place the result either in feature.bounds if there's no geometry
>> or in feature.geometry.bounds if there's a one.
>> What do you think?
> I think you wanted to say that you'd be in favor of option (1)
> ;-)
> I also like the idea of placing the bounds in feature.bounds, or
> feature.geometry.bounds if feature.geometry exists.
> So, I'm going to rework the patch attached to ticket
> http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2191
> Thank's,
> F.
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at openlayers.org
> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at openlayers.org
> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

Eric Lemoine

Camptocamp France SAS
Savoie Technolac, BP 352
73377 Le Bourget du Lac, Cedex

Tel : 00 33 4 79 44 44 96
Mail : eric.lemoine at camptocamp.com

More information about the Dev mailing list