The feature type is often the name of the file; and consists of the attribute columns defined for that shapefile.
-- Jody Garnett On Wednesday, 22 June 2011 at 9:17 PM, Mifan Careem wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm working on some additional scenarios for the catalog view, and it is > quite difficult to come up with a one-solution-that-fits all solution - > thanks for pointer Andrea - I'm trying to figure out how to handle loads of > shapefiles from the local file system. > > Quick question - in terms of a Shapefile, what would Feature Type be? Is it > POINT, LINE or POLYGON or can it be something else? > > Thanks > > Mifan > > On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Mifan Careem <[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > Hi Andrea, > > > > Sure - I'll put up some examples for the other types on the wiki. It is > > interesting since the view I had doesn't help a situation where there are > > say 100 shapefiles loaded from the filesystem, which still shows up as a > > 100 shapefiles in the 'Service' view. > > > > Mifan > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:13 AM, andrea antonello > > <[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > Hi Mifan, > > > can you make more examples of your wortkflow for different data types? > > > You tend to make examples just with remote services and I want to make > > > sure all the different types have a proper way to be handled. > > > > > > What would happen for example with: > > > - shapefiles > > > - folder of shapefiles > > > - tiff > > > - asc > > > - folder with tiff and asc > > > - folder with tiff and shapefiles > > > - postgis connection > > > - no4j connection (or H2 or sqlite) > > > -... any other thought? > > > > > > I can be around for IRC for about 1/2 an hour at the same time as last > > > time. > > > > > > Ciao, > > > Andrea > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Mifan Careem <[email protected] > > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > 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] > > > > (mailto:[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 > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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
_______________________________________________ User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig) http://udig.refractions.net http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel
