[wfs-dev] XSD pitfall? (OWS)

[Frank.Steggink@bentley.com]

Hello Peter,

Thanks for your answer. The reason your capabilities document is
validating is because it doesn't contain any of the elements inherited
from ows:DescriptionType (i.e. Title, Abstract, Keywords) in
ows:ServiceIdentification, so those elements also can't be in the wrong
location/order.

About the corrigendum and any future problems: to who should I direct
any problems, apart for the list?

Regards,

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Panagiotis (Peter) A. Vretanos [mailto:pvretano at cubewerx.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 15:19
To: Frank Steggink
Cc: wfs-dev at opengeospatial.org
Subject: Re: [wfs-dev] XSD pitfall? (OWS)


Frank.Steggink at bentley.com wrote:
>  
> I've a couple of questions:
> 1) I assume the XSD's are normative, and not the examples, right?

Yes, although the examples should be corrected.  I'll get a corrigendum
going for that.

> 2) Have others experienced the same problems, while trying to validate

> the Capabilities document with the XSD's?

There have been some problems identified in the past but the last
corrigendum was an attempt to correct those problems.

I try to keep track of the errors identified and then generate a
corrigendum periodically (as time permits)  to correct identified
problems.  If you have anything specific, let me know.

> 3) What are good strategies when the resulting XML doesn't validate? 

Generally, I copy the offending schema into a local repository (e.g. 
http://www.pvretano.com/schemas), correct it so that my file validates
and then try to generate a corrigendum to have the problem corrected.

B.T.W.

I was able to get my capabilities document to validate directly from the
OGC schema repository:

http://www.pvretano.com/cwwfs/cwwfs.cgi?service=WFS&version=1.1.0&reques
t=GetCapabilities

I checked it with XML Spy Enterprise Edition v 2006 rel. 3.

Screen shot at: http://www.pvretano.com/Test/Spy.jpg

If you send me the specific validation problems you have run into, I'll
try to take a look at them.

Ciao.


> I've been thinking about it, but I would like to hear your opinions. 
> It's not very user friendly to mention that the responses don't 
> validate, so the user can't use the service. In case of GML, it is a 
> bit risky to accept the content, since you don't know what the author 
> means, but with WFS_Capabilities it's pretty clear what every 
> element/attribute means (within reasonable limits).
>  
> While browsing in the WFS 1.1 spec (section 6.6), I also see that the 
> OGC namespaces all have the following format 
> "http://www.opengeospatial.net/<spec_abbr>", but the schemata and all 
> implementations (known to me) use "http://www.opengis.net/<spec_abbr>
> <http://www.opengis.net/<spec_abbr>>". I've confirmed this with a 
> freshly downloaded PDF of WFS 1.1, in case I missed any updates. The 
> corrigendum 06-027r1 doesn't mention anything about the namespaces.
>  
> Regards,
> 
> Frank Steggink
> Bentley Systems
>  
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wfs-dev mailing list
> wfs-dev at opengeospatial.org
> https://mail.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/wfs-dev

-- 
Panagiotis (Peter) A. Vretanos          CubeWerx Inc.
Big Kahuna (Senior Database Developer)  http://www.cubewerx.com
Tel. 416-701-1985 Fax. 416-701-9870     pvretano at cubewerx.com

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first
  create the universe." -- Carl Sagan