Simple features profile

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Simple features profile

stbrunner
Hello everybody,

Some hours ago I create an Issue and a Pull Request for better support of the simple feature profile:
https://github.com/mapserver/mapserver/issues/4977
https://github.com/mapserver/mapserver/pull/4978

The issue is that the <gml:pointMembers>, <gml:curveMembers> and the <gml:surfaceMembers> tags where removed in the version 1.0 of the "Simple features profile":
http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=15201&passcode=h597f3yybeu8fqxh99kh

I think that the "Simple features profile" should be preferred in all cases where it's possible to be as iner-operable as possible, for example OpenLayers take the chose to implement only the "Simple features profile":
http://trac.osgeo.org/openlayers/ticket/2388
https://github.com/openlayers/openlayers/pull/1323

I hope that will be included in the version 7.0 :-)

Sincerely
Stéphane Brunner

_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Simple features profile

Rahkonen Jukka (Tike)

Hi,

 

After reading the discussion from the github issue (which is discussion forum that I do not like a lot as a pure Mapserver user) I would say that principally you seem to be right with it. However, when it comes to interoperability I consider it would be better to discuss first with Geoserver, TinyOWS and deegree and ArcGIS developersAll these WFS brands seem to send multiCurves and multiSurfaces. I base this from the deegree side on the 5 year old OpenLayers ticket and from Geoserver, TinyOWS and ArcGIS side on these

http://demo.opengeo.org/geoserver/wfs?service=wfs&version=1.1.0&request=getfeature&typename=topp:states&

http://hip.latuviitta.org/cgi-bin/tinyows?service=wfs&version=1.1.0&request=getfeature&typename=lv:editable_multilines

http://gtkdata.gtk.fi/arcgis/services/GTKWFS/MapServer/WFSServer?service=wfs&versio=1.1.1&request=GetFeature&typename=GTKWFS:Suomen_metallogeeninen_kartta&maxfeatures=10

 

 

ArcGIS, Geoserver and deegree are much more common WFS servers than Mapserver. If Mapserver alone goes to strict simple features no WFS client developer can still cease supporting multiSurfaces etc. BTW. is it really so that OpenLayers can’t read topp:states from Geoservers with WFS 1.1.0? Of course this change in Mapserver should not break any client and I am not against it per se. I just believe that “Simple features profile” does not work in practice.

 

-Jukka Rahkonen-

 

Stéphane Brunner wrote:

 

Hello everybody,

Some hours ago I create an Issue and a Pull Request for better support of the simple feature profile:
https://github.com/mapserver/mapserver/issues/4977
https://github.com/mapserver/mapserver/pull/4978

The issue is that the <gml:pointMembers>, <gml:curveMembers> and the <gml:surfaceMembers> tags where removed in the version 1.0 of the "Simple features profile":
http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=15201&passcode=h597f3yybeu8fqxh99kh

I think that the "Simple features profile" should be preferred in all cases where it's possible to be as iner-operable as possible, for example OpenLayers take the chose to implement only the "Simple features profile":
http://trac.osgeo.org/openlayers/ticket/2388
https://github.com/openlayers/openlayers/pull/1323

I hope that will be included in the version 7.0 :-)

 

Sincerely

Stéphane Brunner


_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Simple features profile

Even Rouault-2
Selon "Rahkonen Jukka  (Tike)" <[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
>
> After reading the discussion from the github issue (which is discussion forum
> that I do not like a lot as a pure Mapserver user) I would say that
> principally you seem to be right with it. However, when it comes to
> interoperability I consider it would be better to discuss first with
> Geoserver, TinyOWS and deegree and ArcGIS developersAll these WFS brands seem
> to send multiCurves and multiSurfaces. I base this from the deegree side on
> the 5 year old OpenLayers ticket and from Geoserver, TinyOWS and ArcGIS side
> on these
>
http://demo.opengeo.org/geoserver/wfs?service=wfs&version=1.1.0&request=getfeature&typename=topp:states&
>
http://hip.latuviitta.org/cgi-bin/tinyows?service=wfs&version=1.1.0&request=getfeature&typename=lv:editable_multilines
>
http://gtkdata.gtk.fi/arcgis/services/GTKWFS/MapServer/WFSServer?service=wfs&versio=1.1.1&request=GetFeature&typename=GTKWFS:Suomen_metallogeeninen_kartta&maxfeatures=10

Jukka, I'm a bit confused by what you tried to demonstrate with the above
examples and am not sure if you've understood the suggested change.

The above examples show that at least GeoServer and ArcGIS (and likely TinyOWS,
but couldn't open it through the proxy I'm behind) use <surfaceMember> and not
<surfaceMembers> (like MapServer and Deegree do).

Currently, MapServer emits :

<gml:MultiSurface>
  <gml:surfaceMembers>
     <gml:Polygon>...</gml:Polygon>
     <gml:Polygon>...</gml:Polygon>
  </gml:surfaceMembers>
</gml:MultiSurface>

With the proposed change, it would become :

<gml:MultiSurface>
  <gml:surfaceMember>
     <gml:Polygon>...</gml:Polygon>
  </gml:surfaceMember>
  <gml:surfaceMember>
     <gml:Polygon>...</gml:Polygon>
  </gml:surfaceMember>
</gml:MultiSurface>

Even

--
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Simple features profile

Rahkonen Jukka (Tike)
In reply to this post by stbrunner
Hi,

I apologize, I did not notice the difference between using surfaceMembers vs. a list of "surfaceMember" s.  I was too much remembering the time when deegree was the only brand which was using surfaces and curves and therefore deegree services could not be cascaded with other brands even is the curves and surfaces were all straight lines and polygons.

I should have checked what my own Mapserver is doing
http://hip.latuviitta.org/cgi-bin/mapserver_wfs?service=wfs&version=1.1.0&request=getfeature&typename=natura2000&maxFeatures=10

Sorry for the noise. I am very keen on improving interoperability.

-Jukka-

Even Rouault wrote:


>
> Selon "Rahkonen Jukka  (Tike)" <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > After reading the discussion from the github issue (which is
> > discussion forum that I do not like a lot as a pure Mapserver user) I
> > would say that principally you seem to be right with it. However, when
> > it comes to interoperability I consider it would be better to discuss
> > first with Geoserver, TinyOWS and deegree and ArcGIS developersAll
> > these WFS brands seem to send multiCurves and multiSurfaces. I base
> > this from the deegree side on the 5 year old OpenLayers ticket and
> > from Geoserver, TinyOWS and ArcGIS side on these
> >
> http://demo.opengeo.org/geoserver/wfs?service=wfs&version=1.1.0&request=
> getfeature&typename=topp:states&
> >
> http://hip.latuviitta.org/cgi-
> bin/tinyows?service=wfs&version=1.1.0&request=getfeature&typename=lv:edit
> able_multilines
> >
> http://gtkdata.gtk.fi/arcgis/services/GTKWFS/MapServer/WFSServer?service=w
> fs&versio=1.1.1&request=GetFeature&typename=GTKWFS:Suomen_metallogee
> ninen_kartta&maxfeatures=10
>
> Jukka, I'm a bit confused by what you tried to demonstrate with the above
> examples and am not sure if you've understood the suggested change.
>
> The above examples show that at least GeoServer and ArcGIS (and likely
> TinyOWS, but couldn't open it through the proxy I'm behind) use
> <surfaceMember> and not <surfaceMembers> (like MapServer and Deegree do).
>
> Currently, MapServer emits :
>
> <gml:MultiSurface>
>   <gml:surfaceMembers>
>      <gml:Polygon>...</gml:Polygon>
>      <gml:Polygon>...</gml:Polygon>
>   </gml:surfaceMembers>
> </gml:MultiSurface>
>
> With the proposed change, it would become :
>
> <gml:MultiSurface>
>   <gml:surfaceMember>
>      <gml:Polygon>...</gml:Polygon>
>   </gml:surfaceMember>
>   <gml:surfaceMember>
>      <gml:Polygon>...</gml:Polygon>
>   </gml:surfaceMember>
> </gml:MultiSurface>
>
> Even
>
> --
> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services http://www.spatialys.com
_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev