NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Simon: BY the other way around - I meant that there is need to distinguish SOS from WFS. We have customers that deploy our WFS solely for sensor data and which have more or less no TGF's - just sensor data packets (GML observations). I agree that there is, at least for the purpose of discussion, the need to have a word for TGF - maybe that is the essence of the argument - IS THERE? I certainly do not equate WFS with TGF. I don't even see it as different communities with different interests - biases yes - but hardly different interests - since anyone obtaining sensor data must have an interest in some kind of TGF, and coverages - and since the game plan here is to facilitate fusion - the fewer conceptual barriers the better. Ron
From: Simon Cox [mailto:Simon.Cox@xxxxxxxx] Sent: May 10, 2007 7:37 PM 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 highlightsRon - 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: