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

Sat Jun 7 13:19:11 PDT 2014

Please add your specific list of current non-compliant issue to:
http://hub.qgis.org/issues/6520

I'll add in a note about the WMS 1.3 tags specifically created for
non-standard features.

I think this issue can be resolved.

Thanks,
Alex

On 06/07/2014 01:17 PM, Alex Mandel wrote:
> On 06/07/2014 01:06 PM, Andrea Peri wrote:
>> 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).
> 
> It looks really simple to use according to the docs. If it works and
> cascading WMS works with other WMS servers, and it passes the schema
> check I see no issue.
> 
> 
>> 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.
>> :)
> This exists in the html world, over time there are winners. If you don't
> care to use the extra features you are always welcome to use the base
> which is 100% compliant. The winners or some compromise variant end up
> in the next version of the spec.
> 
>> I guess surely better and easy is put the new functions in in a distinct
>> and new kind of request.
>>
> 
> After reading the WMS doc I believe using the tags I mention is the
> correct way to do it. Technically the result is WMS 1.3.0 compliant.
> Clients are free to ignore the extra functions as not using them does
> not remove any required features.
> 
> As to why fund it? If QGIS provides other value to your organization in
> some other way, total cost of operation may be lower to simply ensure
> it's compliant rather than to switch software or have to use multiple
> software.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alex
> 
> 
>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-user mailing list
>> Qgis-user at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> 