[OSGeo-Standards] Inline GML? Good idea poorly executed

[Jody Garnett]

I find it consistent with inline GML for SLD; but I also hated it there 
as well :-) For a while SLD was being hacked up really badly, when they 
added inline GML and additional WFS connections becomes a really bad 
"context" document. Basically trying to slave an external WMS to draw 
content and messing up several clear standards in the process.

My thought was always to:
- have a good context document; purpose is to describe a Map
- have a good style document; similar to FeatureTypeStyle wrapped up as 
a document

I made some progress in OWS-3; perhaps with these new personal OGC 
memberships I can make some more.

Now before I rant too much; the method was wrong (tyring to take short 
cuts by trying to complicate several otherwise innocent specifications). 
The motivation GML is however very clear; this is a real need of the 
user community (so much so they have tried to inflict it on us several 
times).

I always like to have a working assumption on where these standards 
should go; so they still interlock together nicely. As such I am still 
searching for a good spot for this inline GML need - inspiration if you 
will. A zipfile with a context document manifest? Should it be limited 
to GML? These are all good questions - let's get context document 
working first.
Jody

At the end of the day I would like to have
Lorenzo Becchi wrote:
>
>
>
>> My understanding is that OWS Context was originally designed to 
>> describe a map, providing an Area of Interest and a list of map 
>> layers + styles, where the map layers are links to external map 
>> services (WMS, WFS, external GML files).
>> Now a layer can also have embedded GML too.
>
>
> I don't know what's Jody's opinion about GML embedded into the Context 
> file but I'm personally against. Why should OGC allow to store just a 
> type of content inside the Context file when others content types, 
> like raster layers, can't naturally be included?
> I know this comment arrives definitive late but maybe it's not too late.
>
>> Assuming the embedded GML is small, the Context document is small, 
>> and is suitable to be stored as XML (as it is).
>> Adding additional layer services (like Tiled WMS, Google Maps etc) 
>> would work well within this model.
>> This is what Jody is referring to as "lite" above.
>>
>> For storing large datasets, ("OWS Context heavy") I don't think XML 
>> is a good format as it is too verbose. This might be a good time to 
>> look into Binary XML again. (Cubewerx has already done some work for 
>> the OGC here).
>
> IMO, if we exclude embeded GML, "OWS Context heavy" will always remain 
> slim enough even if you use plain XML.
>
> ciao
> Lorenzo