[Auscope-geosciml] CGI Value abomination

Rob.Atkinson at csiro.au Rob.Atkinson at csiro.au
Wed Sep 2 00:27:46 EDT 2009


Next week I'll be visiting Simon, and will be happy to put this on the agenda to explore and suggest a straw man solution.

If this is not suitable timing, I'll try to mock somethign up in the meantime.

but basically - you leave the CGI_term and TermValue classes, but you redefine them as specialisations of the base class we decide to use - I need to understand where ISO19146 is at, but it seems to be exactly what we would need.

CGI_term may have some additional semantics or properties, but this should be able to be handled.

Rob

________________________________
From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au [Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2009 2:21 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Cc: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au; auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au; Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] CGI Value abomination


I like Rob's suggestion - at least the bit I understand - "This way no client models actually need to change. The implementation of CGI_Value using the old model is now an implementation choice, that can be deprecated. "

What does the rest mean? ie how do we actually do it?

Bruce

GeoScience Victoria
EARTH RESOURCES DIVISION
Department of Primary Industries
Melbourne, Victoria
AUSTRALIA
Ph: +61-3-9658 4502
Fax: +61-3-9658 4555
Mobile: +61 429 177155


<Rob.Atkinson at csiro.au>
Sent by: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au

02/09/2009 08:22 AM
Please respond to
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au




To
        <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>, <Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au>
cc

Subject
        Re: [Auscope-geosciml] CGI Value abomination







would it be possible to recast CGI_Value as a facade to an implementation as a specialisation of ISO19146, and have a canonical implementation of ISO19146 using a pre-defined set of service interfaces (SKOS maybe + something with more ontological power?)

This way no client models actually need to change. The implementation of CGI_Value using the old model is now an implementation choice, that can be deprecated. New systems (with suitable deployment profiles) could demand the canonical implementation.


Rob Atkinson
Team Leader, Interoperable Systems
CSIRO Land & Water
Ph (mobile) +61 419 202 973


________________________________
From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Simon Cox
Sent: Tuesday, 1 September 2009 5:10 PM
To: Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Cc: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: [Auscope-geosciml] CGI Value abomination

Ollie, others:

I have been grumbling about this for a while, and hope that it can be addressed in the upcoming meeting in Quebec.


Way too many of the class attributes in GeoSciML use CGI_Value and its variants.

I am fully aware of the history of when CGI_Value it was created (Ottawa, 2005) and its value (it allowed us to move forward on the bigger issues).
It also allowed a lazy UML design process, where for most atttributes the type was set following a logic of just 'we can't really think about this now but it'll be some kind of word/number'.

Now I think it is time to set it aside and move on.

My fundamental objections to the almost ubiquitous use of CGI_Value are
(i) it is hard to implement - it relies on XML Schema substitution groups
(ii) it is not compatible with any other domain schema
(iii) it allows data providers to be 'lazy' and create instances that are not interoperable on arrival
(iv) it forces decisions required for data-fusion over to the client - this is fundamentally what a standard encoding is supposed to avoid!
(v) it privileges a marginal GeoSciML use-case (transmission of field data) at the expense of the dominant use-case (exchange of quality-controlled archival data).

Most of the time, the client will refer to 'standard definitions' provided in the GeoSciML concept schemes to translate the values provided into standard forms anyway, so why not get the provider to do that rather than the client

It is the job of the GeoSciML design task group to actually make some choices, fix the type of the basic class attributes, and then require that service providers conform - make them make the choice about the 'best' value for an attribute, don't shirk the job and push it back to the client.

Almost all CGI_Value should be replaced by
(a) ScopedName
(b) Measure
with just a few being
(c) Range (new type)

Simon


--------------------------------------------------------
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
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox

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

 _______________________________________________
Auscope-geosciml mailing list
Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml

Notice:
This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential,
legally privileged and/or copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the copyright owner.

It is the responsibility of the recipient to check for and remove viruses.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. You are not authorised to use, communicate or rely on the information contained in this email.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.









More information about the GeoSciML mailing list