Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Confusion between CITE tests, specification and schemas published online #145

Open
aaime opened this issue Dec 31, 2024 · 2 comments
Open
Assignees

Comments

@aaime
Copy link

aaime commented Dec 31, 2024

Some extensions declare different namespaces in the PDF specification (followed by CITE tests) and in the published schemas.

For example, interpolation:

  • In the specification, page 1 (these are not XML namespaces, but it's easy to confuse them):

This document establishes the following requirements and conformance classes:
interpolation, of URI http://www.opengis.net/spec/WCS_service-extension_ interpolation/1.0/req/interpolation; the corresponding conformance class is interpolation,
with URI http://www.opengis.net/spec/WCS_serviceextension_interpolation/1.0/conf/interpolation

I'm going to guess the schemas at schemas.opengis.org are wrong... could you confirm?

@dstenger
Copy link
Contributor

dstenger commented Jan 2, 2025

Thank you for reporting.

I also come to the conclusion that the namespace used in the schemas at schemas.opengis.org are wrong.
However, this question should be answered the SWG (CC @pebau). Thus, I propose to contact the SWG directly.

@dstenger dstenger added this to CITE Jan 2, 2025
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to To do in CITE Jan 2, 2025
@dstenger dstenger moved this from To do to Needs discussion in CITE Jan 2, 2025
@pebau
Copy link

pebau commented Jan 2, 2025

indeed, quite confusing - not only for you. By way of history, when these specs were written coverages happened to be the first users of a ModSpec in beta (at best) - see how ModSpec discussion is still going on today.

I always had asked for a recipe "OGC URLs for dummies", so suitable for me. We should look at that as the ground truth for inspection, verification, and - should it be necessary - fixing.

@dstenger, @ghobona : can you point us to the authoritative OGC URL reference? Based on that, I am available for getting hands URL-dirty.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Needs discussion
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants