[Auscope-geosciml] GeologicUnit composition, geologicHistory in Geoserver

Simon Cox simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu
Mon Aug 31 13:37:03 EDT 2009

This pattern - each property-element can only contain one Object-element -
is a consequence of the UML-XMl encoding rule defined for GML Application
schemas. You should not be tempted to manually tweak the XML schema - it is
automaticaly generated using the rule. Occassionally that might make the XML
more verbose than a hand-crafted schema, but in general we believe that the
regularity more than outweighs this consideration. 

Simon Cox

European Commission, Joint Research Centre 
Institute for Environment and Sustainability 
Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262 
Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy 
Tel: +39 0332 78 3652 
Fax: +39 0332 78 6325 
 <mailto:simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu> mailto:simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu 

SDI Unit:  <http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
IES Institute:  <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
JRC:  <http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/




From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
[mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Ryan Clark
Sent: Monday, 31 August 2009 19:01
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: [Auscope-geosciml] GeologicUnit composition,geologicHistory in

I'm still working with Geoserver to get a GeoSciML WFS set up. I've run into
something that confuses me a bit in the GeologicUnit featuretype. From what
I can understand looking at the schema, it looks like it would be valid for
me to list multiple <composition>s under a <GeologicUnit>, each with a
single <CompositionPart> element. Similarly, it looks like it would be valid
to list multiple <geologicHistory>s, each with a single <GeologicEvent>.
>From my understanding of the app-schema Geoserver extension, it is also
easier to do it this way. I also see a few instance documents that put
things together like this.

However it doesn't really make sense to me conceptually, and it seems like
it would be more sensible to have just one <geologicHistory> containing
multiple <GeologicEvent>s, or one <composition> with multiple
<ComnpositionPart>s. Perhaps either way is valid?  I'm not sure if Geoserver
is even capable of putting together a document following the latter option.
Has anyone implemented this?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20090831/913a9b80/attachment.htm>

More information about the GeoSciML mailing list