HI All, Based on the last IRC breakout on the Catalog View, I've come up with a 2nd draft of a possible view: http://udig.refractions.net/confluence/display/UDIG/GSoC+2011+-+Catalog+View+Reports#GSoC2011-CatalogViewReports-catalogscenario1
<http://udig.refractions.net/confluence/display/UDIG/GSoC+2011+-+Catalog+View+Reports#GSoC2011-CatalogViewReports-catalogscenario1>Scenario 1 here is trying to keep it as simple as possible, before moving to the multi-select (scenario 2) and configurable start components (scenario 3). I'd love to hear your thought on this and verify whether the thinking here is right. The use case for Scenario 1 is as follows: - The catalog lists the Service Types (File, Database, Web Services, Other, Decorator). The other components (Service, DataType and Layers) are blank - User selects the Web Services Service Type - The Services component is then filled with the Services that fall under the selected Services Type (FGDC WMS, ESRI WMS, Geoserver WFS etc.) - The user selects the MassGIS WFS. This populates the DataType component with the FeatureTypes. - The user select the FeatureType. This loads the Layers relevant to the feature type. Usually this might be a 1:1 mapping Should we have another IRC to discuss this further? Cheers Mifan On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Jody Garnett <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig) http://udig.refractions.net http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel
