Ooh a topology model !!! cool. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 28, 2006 5:06 AM To: Raj Singh; Jo Walsh Cc: Geoserver-devel; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Geotools-Devel list Subject: Re: [WFSBasic.Users] [Geotools-devel] Versioning WFS-T and protocolextensions
Here's what the current usage profile of the OpenStreetMap API. It's worked extremely well, and been implemented by many clients. Authentication: HTTP Simple authentication, with login/pw passed within the url (yes, this would more wisely be https or http digest) http://foo%40example.com:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/api/0.3/node/1 Format: OSM uses a pretty simple XML format. Mapping to GeoRSS would be straightforward, though would add a bit extra markup (easily gzip'd away) The OSM db stores "nodes", "segments" (two nodes), "ways" (a collection of segments). segment and ways items would simply contain references to other items. RESTful commands... If anything goes wrong with these commands, an appropriate HTTP Response code is returned. GET Can pass a bbox to get all objects in that area. Each of those type of objects can be requested by id and the complete history of an object can be requested .. this could also be mapped to GeoRSS, as multiple items with the same id, different timestamps PUT Simply pass in a chunk of XML, and that object is updated. DELETE Just pass in the id To me, standardization doesn't seem much more complicated than adding the Atom Publishing Protocol on top of WFS Simple ----- Original Message ---- From: Raj Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jo Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Chris Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Geoserver-devel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Geotools-Devel list <[email protected]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:35:11 AM Subject: Re: [WFSBasic.Users] [Geotools-devel] Versioning WFS-T and protocol extensions I kind of agree with Chris. To do transactions right moves out of Simple land. Once you want to update or edit a data set you need to know all kinds of things about the structure of that data. Not to mention the other issues. Maybe openstreetmap people could offer some advice? --- Raj On Nov 27, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Jo Walsh wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 06:37:16PM -0500, Chris Holmes wrote: >> I would love it if we could include our ideas on transactions and >> versioning and the like in WFS-Simple, but unfortunately I do fear >> that >> when you get in to transactions, authentication, and versioning >> you're >> no longer in 'simple' land (indeed I myself might argue against their >> place in a simple spec). > > Then 'Simple' is kind of a misnomer. 'Basic' was the original name, > right? I would have thought being able to write a feature to a web > feature service was a fairly basic operation ;P > > You don't need much of the rest of WFS, right, to do Transactions? > Like Filter support and POST queries, GML comprehension and emission, > all these non-Simple things. The question is not "why should it be > WFS-T" but "why shouldn't it also be this other, kind of WFS-like > thing" _______________________________________________ WFSBasic.Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://mail.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/wfsbasic.users ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
