NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Oh - I probably should also have noted (a) we could characterize the GIS community as "the domain of discourse that cares about TGFs"; i.e. TGF is the set of feature-types defined within the traditional GIS community (b) the "different names" for different services could be "WCS", "SOS" etc or "Coverage profile of Generic Feature Service" and "Observation Profile of Generic Feature Service", etc, with the understanding that "profile" allows for query-model optimisations as well as response-model forms. Simon
From: Cox, Simon (E&M, Kensington) Sent: Friday, 11 May 2007 10:37 AM To: Ron Lake; Carl Reed OGC Account; p.baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Roy.Mendelssohn@xxxxxxxx; galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gpercivall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Singh, Raj Subject: Re: OGC Ottawa TC meeting highlights Ron - Actually I don't "see it the other way around" - please take a look at my slides and you will see that I show examples of WFS fronting SOS, and of SOS fronting WFS, and also various interactions with Registers and WCS. It all depends which viewpoint you need. They all have their time and place. And many configurations are possible in a SOA - that is kinda the point. I like George's recent architecture diagrams where he has dispensed with arrows between components altogether, in favour of a background that contains pervasive arrows! John - yes, you caught me - in this thread I slid back to the "traditional geospatial feature" usage of the term "feature". In other contexts I have been one of the first to emphasize that "feature" is not restricted to this. My current formulation is "identifiable thing whose type is defined in some community or domain of discourse". Yes, that certainly includes all the concepts that you mentioned (licenses, schemas, etc). Nevertheless, the notion of "traditional geospatial feature" (lets call it TGF) (I won't even attempt to define it here) appears to have some utility, and least as a viewpoint, which resonates with a lot of folks. Maybe we need another word for it. In the slides, in the slides attached to the mail I sent yesterday, the "WFS" components refer to a TGF-service. I fully agree that a true "Feature-service" would be the parent of all more specialized services, including coverage services, TGF-services, etc, which could be understood as profiles that provide access to some viewpoint related to convenience packaging. Like the simplified packaging-oriented info models, the service profiles are still useful - different communities with different focusses understandably find one more convenient than another, at least at different stages in their workflow. So it is probably useful to give these services differentnames.Simon
galeon archives: