NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Ron, We are missing an overall Services Architecture, that is the result of the glitch we got when we went SOA about 2001 or thereabouts. There was one once in Topic 12 <http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=1221> http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=1221, but that was never complete, nor completely SOA and is definitely out of date (2001). I also agree that WFS should be the core of all data access services, including coverages, images, sensors, observations, licenses (okay that might be pushing the issue a bit) and metadata (a catalog entry is also feature). Which is one of the reasons that WFS might need to be freed up from restrictions on the type of schema it can use in its responses, since there are already standard schemata for some of this, at least in the non-geo world, that could be extended to cover our issues (sort of what we did in GeoREL and GeoXACML). Regards, John
From: owner-galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Lake Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 1:42 PM To: John Herring; Carl Reed OGC Account; Simon.Cox@xxxxxxxx; p.baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: OGC Ottawa TC meeting highlights 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.
galeon archives: