NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
John: I don't disagree - except we don't seem to have a top down model with respect to services and how those services should fit together and what they are all for. I think we have a reasonably coherent model for data in the abstract specification. That is the top down part that I see as missing. I do agree that everything is a feature - and most especially coverages and observations - and to me a consequence of that ought to be that a WCS is a kind of WFS as is a SOS. Ron
I am now confused as to what you guys are talking about. We have a top-down model, it's the abstract specification. We just don't seem to use it, and when we do, we tend to abuse it. In the first 5 years, other than writing Simple Features, all we did was create an information model. There was a glitch when we went SOA, but that did not affect the information model. GML is built (well sort of) on that information model. Most of the issues we are having is because folks have reinterpreted that model, usually badly, or ignored it. In a way, what OGC should be using as a core is its abstract specification, especially the volumes that are paralleled in ISO TC 211. Our major problem is not the lack or a core model, but that we tend to reinvent or reinterpret our own core model for every document, whether it needs it or not. And that usually happens after the fact, which is why no one (Ron and Simon included) seems to understand that everything really is a feature. The diagram nightmares are the result of shoehorning something into the core model ex post facto, not a result of its extension. Regards, John
galeon archives: