[OSGeo-Standards] The OGC requests comments on the OWS Context Conceptual Model and ATOM Extension candidate standards

[Jody Garnett]

Quick feedback:

Conceptual Model

So much better than last time I looked. GetCapabilities is now listed allowing client to perform version negotiation and figure out what it can support, indeed that is listed as a "Key Requirement" this time out.

A few of the sections later on could benefit from some Q&A for consistency …  

GeoTIFF is marked as "This class describes the extension to the OWS Context Core which supports in-line or referenced offerings. ; this can include referencing local files or into databases."

However the details only provide "content" that is a "Local reference to a File" - this does not on the face of it indicate support for "in-line" GeoTIFF provided as part of the context document.

I am also looking for a vendor extension section, so that the lowly shapefile can be supported (as this is still a primary use case for desktop apps).

ATOM Encoding

I eventually skipped to the examples, I like the smooth ramp up between simply listing operations (HTTP GET GetCapabilities, GetXXXX), through to allowing HTTP Post, through to caching the results at the time the context was created. This would allow an application to display what was intended (say what a decision was based on) and then "refresh" it to reflect the current operating picture.

--  
Jody Garnett


On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 10:41 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:

> Last time I looked at this one with Jim … I hated it (even though he was keen on how ATOM had been used).
> For me It was not providing enough context for a client to make its own request.
>  
> I would really like to see a context document take shape, it would be very valuable between systems (which we tend to like on these osgeo lists).
>  
> Tracing through your links I arrive at some word docs, don't suppose you can format shift those to PDF or something more portable.
>  
> --  
> Jody Garnett
>  
>  
> On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 3:39 AM, Carl Reed wrote:
>  
> > I am not sure if this group saw this announcement. This is a preliminary comment period. There will be another comment period later in the process.
> >   
> > The announcement is here:
> >   
> > http://www.opengeospatial.org/node/1765
> >   
> > Please ignore the Comment Due date. The OGC OWS Context Standards Working Group is happy to receive comments on this candidate standard at any time.
> >   
> > Regards
> >   
> > Carl Reed, PhD
> > CTO and Executive Director Standards Program
> > Open Geospatial Consortium
> > www.opengeospatial.org (http://www.opengeospatial.org)
> >  
> > The OGC: Making Location Count!
> >  
> > ---------------------
> >  
> > This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies.
> >  
> > "The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein  
> > "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller  
> > _______________________________________________
> > Standards mailing list
> > Standards at lists.osgeo.org (mailto:Standards at lists.osgeo.org)
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> >  
> >  
> >  
>  
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20130219/ffe3f662/attachment.html>