[Qgis-developer] [Qgis-user] A discussion: is qgis still affordable in Europe if it violate the Inspire directive ?

Andrea Peri aperi2007 at gmail.com
Sat Jun 7 13:06:04 PDT 2014


Yes also this is possible,
but pay attention to use it correctly.
I guess it is no really simple to use (ie to define the extension).

In the SLD world this was allowed and a unfortunately and worst
understanding of it will born a lot of incompatible dialects.
Also in the metadata world (iso19115) the possibility to extend the specs
will produce incompatibility monster.
:)

I guess surely better and easy is put the new functions in in a distinct
and new kind of request.

Andrea.



2014-06-07 21:56 GMT+02:00 Alex Mandel <tech_dev at wildintellect.com>:

> I just checked the WMS 1.3.0 specification document
> http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=14416
>
> Extended optional features are allowed. There is a specific way to
> include them. See section 6.9.5 "Extended capabilities and operations"
> <_ExtendedCapabilities> or <_ExtendedOperations>
>
> So perhaps we just need to wrap those extra options in a specific tag
> for them to pass schema testing.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> On 06/07/2014 12:35 PM, Alex Mandel wrote:
> > I understand the issue now. In order to be WMS 1.3 complaint you can
> > only use what's in the spec.
> >
> > Looking at an analogy with html specs I find this limitation appalling
> > short-sighted. It means there can be no innovation testing new features
> > with the spec unless you manage to get it into the future spec. I find
> > it hard to comprehend that clients don't just skip tags that fail to
> > match a known tag. In html land its very common for some browsers to
> > know some non-standard tags, which are new features in testing to be
> > proposed or reworked into future standards. IE's policy of only adhering
> > to the spec and including no experimental tag support has been seen be
> > web designers as discouraging to any change. Why, because their is no
> > way to publicly test new ideas.
> >
> > So from the QGIS side, in order to comply we would need to reply with
> > only allowed tags if a user requests WMS=1.3.0, we can reply with more
> > stuff like GetPrint if they don't specify that version. Or perhaps we
> > have to invent a 1.3.0+ variant specifically for when a user knows it's
> > QGIS server.
> >
> > Anyone more familiar with WMS that can shed more light on the best way
> > to work around this issue and have both compliance and the ability to
> > add extra features that have no standard equivalent yet.
> >
> > My point still stands, that EU agencies with this concern should be
> > funding compliance efforts, not removing funding for lack of compliance.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> > On 06/07/2014 12:23 PM, Andrea Peri wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I need to be more clear.
> >> My english is tremendous.
> >> :)
> >>
> >> The Interoperability mean to have a small set of operation euals on
> EVERY
> >> Server WMS.
> >>
> >> Equals mena same reqeust , same response.
> >>
> >> So when a Cleit WMS send a Request of GetCapabilities, The response
> should
> >> be the same from QGIS-server or from GeoServer or From Mapserver.
> >>
> >> The same response mean that every product use the same dialect the same
> >> tags and so on.
> >>
> >>
> >> The XSD OGC is the dictionary that every wms client and server should
> use
> >> to know the right language and tags.
> >>
> >> When the QGIS_Server response to a request GetCapbility with an XML that
> >> contains the GetPrint tags.
> >> The client wms say "hey what is this ? It is not in the XSD OGC. This
> mean
> >> your response is wrong."
> >>
> >> Of course there are some client wms that don0t do a validation of
> response,
> >> they HOPE that the response will be exactly as they exected.
> >> If this is not true. They go in crash or other bad situation.
> >>
> >> Again the resence of a Tag not compliant with XSD OGC will create
> >> incompatibility.
> >>
> >> Think to a client that will parse the xml response and say:
> >>
> >> ok the GetLegendGraphics tag is passed now there is "this well know
> tag".
> >>
> >> Instead arrive a GetPrint tags.
> >>
> >> The client wms become crazy.
> >>
> >> Of course QGIS will understand it.
> >> But this is because you (qgis group) manage it to work.
> >>
> >> But other clients don't know that tag and so they are not able to
> extract
> >> all the information from Capabilities response.
> >> This is a bad practice also because create artiiciosally an
> incopatibility
> >> with other products.
> >> Instead Inspire ask for INteroperability from every product.
> >>
> >> Interoperability don't mean use all the same unique product. (This is
> the
> >> microsoft philosophy)
> >> Interoperability mean All the product must use the same little set of
> >> command and the response at these command should be compatible
> >> (interoperable) between all of them
> >>
> >> Actulally this is not true for the response xml of qgis-server at a
> >> getcapability request.
> >>
> >> Hope to be better explain, now.
> >>
> >> Andrea.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-06-07 20:49 GMT+02:00 Andrea Peri <aperi2007 at gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> Hi Alex,
> >>>
> >>> The question is not the print capability.
> >>>
> >>> The question is to LOST THE INTEROPERABILITY
> >>>
> >>> If qgis response an xml that is not OGC complaint it is not
> interoperable
> >>> with other product.
> >>>
> >>> As example:
> >>>
> >>> if an public Administration will eed to do a cascading wms with the
> server
> >>> wms of another public administration.
> >>> The server before of all call for a GetCapability.
> >>>
> >>> If the response has a tag proprietary. If fail.
> >>> This need Not Interoperable.
> >>>
> >>> I dont say do not do a getprint.
> >>>
> >>> I say remove tha tag GetPrint from the GetCapabilities response.
> >>> It is not a OGC tag and so that response is not interoperable as
> requested
> >>> from Inspire specification.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2014-06-07 20:36 GMT+02:00 Alex Mandel <tech_dev at wildintellect.com>:
> >>>
> >>> On 06/07/2014 11:19 AM, Andrea Peri wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> AFAIK the qgis server is not complaint with Inspire.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This beacausethe Response to GetCapabilities is not responding to the
> >>>>> requisite that the OGC will require for it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Originally the qgis was simply generate an incompatible response for
> the
> >>>>> XSD of OGC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The response is ncompatible for thre thinks:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) the GetCapabilities is in the wrong namespace.
> >>>>> This is a silly question anc could be easily resolved.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2)
> >>>>> The presence of the GetStyle that is dismissed from OGC wms 1.3.0.
> >>>>> Please notice that the Inspire require the WMS 1.3.0 .
> >>>>> To resolve this the QGIS groups has copied the XSD of OGC and
> modifica
> >>>> it
> >>>>> to redirect to a different XSD not in the OGC site.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3) The presence of a Proprietary tag inserted without any reference
> to
> >>>> any
> >>>>> standard.
> >>>>> The GetPrint.
> >>>>> This is not present in any other product.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My question is for any person of a Public Administration that plan or
> >>>> are
> >>>>> funding QGIS.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In Europe the Inspire directive will ask to promove the
> >>>> Interoperability.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The interoperability strategy ask that every produc that allow the
> >>>> inspire
> >>>>> directive will speak the same language using the same tags and
> >>>>> functionality.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The QGIS solution to add a proprietary tag and to write a own
> different
> >>>> xsd
> >>>>> that overlap the standard OGC xsd will create the presuppost (AFAIK)
> to
> >>>>> vilate the Inspire directive.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If this is true A Public Administration should not use the QGIS.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a realproblem for us that invest many fund on qgis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So I like toknow the opinion of other public administration.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Before still fund a product that seem to violate the Inspire
> directive
> >>>>> principles.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thx,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> To me the question is flipped. What needs to be funded, probably by EU
> >>>> agencies to ensure INSPIRE compliance of QGIS Server?
> >>>> It looks like you've put together the list of what needs to be fixed,
> so
> >>>> the target should be easier. I am little puzzled about not allowing
> for
> >>>> extra functions that are not in the standard. Unless the WMS has a
> print
> >>>> standard an extra print add-on doesn't break any expectations. Who
> >>>> knows, maybe that should be submitted as an extension to WMS.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Note, this should have no effect on funding and usage of QGIS desktop.
> >>>> Maybe Paolo has good numbers on if EU agencies are funding Server vs
> >>>> Desktop features.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Alex
> >>>>
>
>
>


-- 
-----------------
Andrea Peri
. . . . . . . . .
qwerty àèìòù
-----------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20140607/cc53ca6a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Qgis-developer mailing list