Issue 62 in ioostech: IOOS SOS Milestone 1.0 WSDD v0.9

[ioos...@googlecode.com]

Status: New
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Review Priority-Medium

New issue 62 by abir...@gmail.com: IOOS SOS Milestone 1.0 WSDD v0.9
http://code.google.com/p/ioostech/issues/detail?id=62

Based on the Shane's feedback, I've updated the WSDD to v0.9
(https://ioostech.googlecode.com/files/IOOS%20SOS%20WSDD%20Draft%20v0.9.docx).
Shane, sorry for not fixing the abbreviated URN description in section
4.2.2.3.2.2 "SWE-GetObservation Template" - I've just missed it, and will
fix it in the very next release. Meanwhile, current version is pretty close
to the final release, and I would appreciate team's review and comments.

A couple of other Shane's suggestions were kind of controversial, and I
believe that they deserve a discussion, even if it is going to be a short
one. So, here are the moot points:

1. Should the ExtendedCapabilities property "softwareVersion" be mentioned
and recommended (not mandatory) for GetCapabilities response?

Although I've inserted provision for that in the WSDD, I would like a team
consensus on that.

2. Should "sml:capabilites" be used with the name="networkProcedures" for
indicating station parent procedure the same way it is used with the
name="stationProcedure" for sensors? Should it be made mandatory, optional,
or is that name usage totally out of scope for the Milestone 1.0?

In my opinion it should be mandatory, while Shane seems to be inclined to
optional. Opinions?


--
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]

Updates:
Owner: alexande...@noaa.gov

Comment #1 on issue 62 by abir...@gmail.com: IOOS SOS Milestone 1.0 WSDD
v0.9
http://code.google.com/p/ioostech/issues/detail?id=62

(No comment was entered for this change.)

[ioos...@googlecode.com]

Updates:
Owner: abir...@gmail.com

Comment #2 on issue 62 by abir...@gmail.com: IOOS SOS Milestone 1.0 WSDD

[ioos...@googlecode.com]

Comment #3 on issue 62 by dpsnowde...@gmail.com: IOOS SOS Milestone 1.0
WSDD v0.9
http://code.google.com/p/ioostech/issues/detail?id=62

I believe the software version field should be mandatory. We will need
this information in the upcoming system integration test.

As for the parent procedure I feel less strongly about this. I can see that
this is a very useful field but I'm not really able to predict the downside
of making it mandatory. Any other thoughts out there?

[ioos...@googlecode.com]

Comment #4 on issue 62 by abir...@gmail.com: IOOS SOS Milestone 1.0 WSDD
v0.9
http://code.google.com/p/ioostech/issues/detail?id=62

OK, I replaced v0.9 with v0.91, which has several minor fixes, e.g. has
abbreviated URN description fixed, etc. The updated link to the document is
https://ioostech.googlecode.com/files/IOOS%20SOS%20WSDD%20Draft%20v0.91.docx