Issue 58 in ioostech: Use of gml:name in GetObservation templates

[ioos...@googlecode.com]

Status: Accepted
Owner: wilcox.k...@gmail.com
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

New issue 58 by wilcox.k...@gmail.com: Use of gml:name in GetObservation
templates
http://code.google.com/p/ioostech/issues/detail?id=58

https://code.google.com/p/ioostech/wiki/SOSGuidelines#Station_offerings_in_GetCapabilities_and_GetObservation

"The network offering URN shall be displayed just once, outside the
<om:Observation> elements, as the content of a
<om:ObservationCollection>/<gml:name> element. For single station
offerings, the <om:ObservationCollection>/<gml:name> may indicate the
station URN."

and

"The <om:ObservationCollection>/<om:member>/<om:Observation>/<gml:name>
shall follow the naming pattern <OFFERING ASSET URN>-<FEATURE TYPE>"

Are this still necessary? They are not in the templates. Is it just left
over wiki material we need to remove?

--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

[ioos...@googlecode.com]

Comment #1 on issue 58 by sh...@axiomalaska.com: Use of gml:name in
GetObservation templates
http://code.google.com/p/ioostech/issues/detail?id=58

Since SOS 2.0 allows zero, one, or many offerings in GetObs requests, and
stations can belong to multiple networks, I'd vote to scratch these.

[ioos...@googlecode.com]

Comment #2 on issue 58 by dpsnowde...@gmail.com: Use of gml:name in
GetObservation templates
http://code.google.com/p/ioostech/issues/detail?id=58

But what does SOS 1.0 allow/require? Isn't that the relevant standard and
version to this discussion? Who created that statement on the wiki? Alex?

[ioos...@googlecode.com]

Comment #3 on issue 58 by wilcox.k...@gmail.com: Use of gml:name in
GetObservation templates
http://code.google.com/p/ioostech/issues/detail?id=58

I'm also for getting rid of them... they don't add any information that
isn't somewhere else. The second point may have come up before we came up
with the official way to specify what featureType an <om:Observation> was
representing.

[ioos...@googlecode.com]

Comment #4 on issue 58 by sh...@axiomalaska.com: Use of gml:name in
GetObservation templates
http://code.google.com/p/ioostech/issues/detail?id=58

SOS 1.0 requires a single offering in GetObs, but our guidance has been
that we should be aware of SOS 2.0 changes and not do anything needlessly
that will need to be changed when we adopt SOS 2.0. Since these are just
descriptive text fields it's not really critical either way, but it will be
more work to add them to the templates, add them to all implementations,
and then change them when we adopt SOS 2.0 than to just drop them now.

[ioos...@googlecode.com]

Comment #5 on issue 58 by dpsnowde...@gmail.com: Use of gml:name in
GetObservation templates
http://code.google.com/p/ioostech/issues/detail?id=58

That sounds like a pretty good justification. As we drift more from strict
OGC compliance (1.0) however we need to think about the line we will not
cross.

[ioos...@googlecode.com]

Comment #6 on issue 58 by emilioma...@gmail.com: Use of gml:name in
GetObservation templates
http://code.google.com/p/ioostech/issues/detail?id=58

That wiki section is part of a longer listing of "Rules" on that page,
that's been populated and maintained mostly by Alex. Each section documents
the outcome/recommendations from one (sometimes more) issue that was
resolved, and has a link to the Issue. As you can see there, that section
apparently documents Issue 26, which was resolved nearly a year ago.

If Issue 26 no longer applies (that seems to be the case?), then yeah,
someone should update the text to reflect reality (the current templates).
But I would suggest that someone also go back to Issue 26 and add a comment
saying that it no longer applies, or that it's been updated or invalidated
by Issue X, or whatever.

With all the updates done on the templates around March-May, it wouldn't be
surprising if there are other issues officially resolved in 2012 that have
now been invalidated or at least no longer apply fully, and corresponding
text on https://code.google.com/p/ioostech/wiki/SOSGuidelines#Rules that
should updated.

[ioos...@googlecode.com]

Comment #7 on issue 58 by abir...@gmail.com: Use of gml:name in
GetObservation templates
http://code.google.com/p/ioostech/issues/detail?id=58

I was just typing my input when Emilio put all into perspective quite well.
So, backspace, backspace, backspace...

[ioos...@googlecode.com]

Comment #8 on issue 58 by sh...@axiomalaska.com: Use of gml:name in
GetObservation templates
http://code.google.com/p/ioostech/issues/detail?id=58

Seems like we're in agreement that these requirements can be removed. Let's
close?

[ioos...@googlecode.com]

Comment #9 on issue 58 by abir...@gmail.com: Use of gml:name in
GetObservation templates
http://code.google.com/p/ioostech/issues/detail?id=58

So, upon review the Issue 26 and current GetObs template, I would assume
that the first bullet from the GetObs response requirement becomes somewhat
irrelevant as it is not used in the GetObs template anymore, and is
unnecessary restrictive in terms of future development, i.e. we all agreed
that although not following the rule is some stretch for SOS 1.0, it will
be perfectly legal for SOS 2.0.

However, the second bullet specifies the structure that is still used in
the template:
<!-- =========================================================== -->
<!-- procedure -->
<!-- Each station is listed as a process member -->
<!-- =========================================================== -->
<om:procedure>
<om:Process>
<gml:member xlink:href="urn:ioos:station:wmo:41001" />
<gml:member xlink:href="urn:ioos:station:wmo:41002" />
</om:Process>
</om:procedure>

Since the Issue 26 discussion revealed that the <om:procedure> may be
presented in various ways, I believe that this bullet should stay. If
everyone agrees, I will remove the first bullet from Wiki, and Kyle may
close the issue then.

[ioos...@googlecode.com]

Comment #10 on issue 58 by dpsnowde...@gmail.com: Use of gml:name in
GetObservation templates
http://code.google.com/p/ioostech/issues/detail?id=58

Kyle, is this issue closed? If you are content with Alex's proposal he
will update the wiki and remove the unnecessary constraints.

[ioos...@googlecode.com]

Comment #11 on issue 58 by wilcox.k...@gmail.com: Use of gml:name in
GetObservation templates
http://code.google.com/p/ioostech/issues/detail?id=58

sounds good, update away and close when done.