Hi Mifan: Sorry for joining the conversation late :-) I am very enthusiastic about your work - and also your questions as they will help motivate me to iron on the wrinkles in the catalog api. > Services -> Layer -> Type > This is from Jody's original proposal. > > Services would be a list of services that are loaded > Layers would be the layers > Types would be the types of layers > (An image is available in [2] named Version 3, under the June 10 Weekly > Report) > > >
Small clarification; I was not sure what to really do for the last column as i had a number of "things" I wanted to communicate: - type (as you indicated); the annoying part is that type forms a "tree" (with the vast majority of types simply extending feature) - style (I have a change proposal I need to sort out on this topic; but basically styles are organised by feature type - as feature type indicates what geometry and attributes are available to be drawn) - friends (if the data was available via another service we consider both layers to be "friends"). This is actually an "association" but friends makes udig a more user-friendly experience :P
_______________________________________________ User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig) http://udig.refractions.net http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel
