You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
From a developer's point of view, I think XLinks are really one of the things that cause a lot of pain when processing (City)GML datasets. And what comes on top: polygons describing, for instance, the outer hull of a building can be spread over various feature types: the <Building> itself, <_BoundarySurface>s with <Opening>s of the building, <_BoundarySurface>s of building installations, and nested levels of building parts having their own boundary surfaces and building installations. And there might be a lot of Xlinks involved. CityGML 3.0 will add more feature types such as storeys or building units that may carry polygons that contribute to the outer building hull.
As a result, simply collecting all polygons of the building hull just to visualize the building can become a tricky task.
So, for CityGML 3.0, I would love to see more restrictions here. For example, all polygons describing the outer building hull should only be allowed to be modelled for the <Building> feature type (e.g. as gml:Solid). Every other feature type semantically classifying one or more of these polygons e.g. as <WallSurface> or as <Window> should not hold the geometry but should be forced to use a reference to the polygons of the building. This way, it would be easier for developers because it is clear where to look for geometry.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
From a developer's point of view, I think XLinks are really one of the things that cause a lot of pain when processing (City)GML datasets. And what comes on top: polygons describing, for instance, the outer hull of a building can be spread over various feature types: the
<Building>
itself,<_BoundarySurface>
s with<Opening>
s of the building,<_BoundarySurface>
s of building installations, and nested levels of building parts having their own boundary surfaces and building installations. And there might be a lot of Xlinks involved. CityGML 3.0 will add more feature types such as storeys or building units that may carry polygons that contribute to the outer building hull.As a result, simply collecting all polygons of the building hull just to visualize the building can become a tricky task.
So, for CityGML 3.0, I would love to see more restrictions here. For example, all polygons describing the outer building hull should only be allowed to be modelled for the
<Building>
feature type (e.g. asgml:Solid
). Every other feature type semantically classifying one or more of these polygons e.g. as<WallSurface>
or as<Window>
should not hold the geometry but should be forced to use a reference to the polygons of the building. This way, it would be easier for developers because it is clear where to look for geometry.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: