[georss] [Mass-Market-GEO] OpenSearch Geo - Feedback

Wed Oct 17 14:47:28 EDT 2007

Hi Jason:

How do you see this in terms of the role of databases.  At the origin of
GML, we considered the idea that most geographic data might in the
future NOT reside in databases, but simply exist as files (documents) on
the web.  It was for this reason that GML objects have gml:ID (of type
XML ID) so that global references could be constructed as URL's to any
GML object.  We then saw such resources as being linked to one another
and hence the origin of the use of xlink:href on GML properties, the
value of the property being obtained by traversing the link.  These
concepts do fit the web, but seem to have more problems in fitting into
database management systems.  Do you see it this way or do you think
that database management systems do not raise any special issues?

Sincerely,

Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: georss-bounces at lists.eogeo.org
[mailto:georss-bounces at lists.eogeo.org] On Behalf Of Jason Cupp
Sent: October 17, 2007 11:23 AM
To: georss at lists.eogeo.org
Subject: Re: [georss] [Mass-Market-GEO] OpenSearch Geo - Feedback

> You say that in the web " hypertext as the engine of application
state"
- what do you mean by that?

I think this is the most novel and exciting thing that is happening as
Web services become more RESTful.

A lot of it has to do with URL construction. When humans browse the web,
we follow links, but this isn't typically how web services work. You can
see a little of this in the OGC capabilities documents. Those documents
contain hyperlinks to URLs that are 'home' to specific operations -- but
that's about it, the rest is left to the URL construction (KVP) and POST
XML rules.

Other things that would make (OGC) services more RESTful (for catalog
search at least):

* the result set representations contain links for [previous] and [next]
result set. No need to perform URL construction, the link is provided.
* the result set contains links for alternative formats: 'full',
'brief', 'summary', 'Dublin Core', 'ebRIM' representations of the same
thing.
* the capabilities would provide a few canonical queries to get the
client going ( a la OpenSearch? )
   1) what's new
   2) what are the new dataset
   3) what are the new services
   4) what's new published by X

* capabilities doesn't provide URLs for operations, but for
"collections"
    GetRecords => Records
    DescribeRecord => Schemas
    GetRecordById => Records
    GetDomain => Domains
    GetCapabilities => Capabilities
  ( just a name change, but it puts you in a different perspective )

...

- Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: georss-bounces at lists.eogeo.org
[mailto:georss-bounces at lists.eogeo.org] On Behalf Of Ron Lake
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:11 AM
To: Sean Gillies; georss at lists.eogeo.org
Subject: Re: [georss] [Mass-Market-GEO] OpenSearch Geo - Feedback

Hi Sean:

Thanks for the response.  That is helpful.  I agree that OGC stuff got
started in the DOM/CORBA days - however all of the services that start
with the letter W (e.g. WFS, WMS, WRS etc) were conceived in the post
CORBA/DCOM era.  I would agree that there is some unstated flavor of DCP
independence in the discussion as of course there is in WSDL (which you
may feel is un-web like?) - I don't think there is much discussion
explicit or implicit of OGC services over anything but IP networks - so
the transports are really down to HTTP, SMTP at most.  I would NOT say
that OGC services are intended to be RPC-like, nor would I say that they
necessarily assume high availability nor minimal latency - quite the
contrary.  Of course the web is infinitely more reliable and latencies
are often quite minimal compared to the situation in the 90's.

You say that in the web " hypertext as the engine of application state"
- what do you mean by that?

R

-----Original Message-----
From: georss-bounces at lists.eogeo.org
[mailto:georss-bounces at lists.eogeo.org] On Behalf Of Sean Gillies
Sent: October 10, 2007 9:47 AM
To: georss at lists.eogeo.org
Subject: Re: [georss] [Mass-Market-GEO] OpenSearch Geo - Feedback

Ron,

I think Pete Lacey's recent post about new taxonomic terms might be 
handy here:

http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2007/10/08/towards-a-better-n
etwork-programming-taxonomy/

Services that are "for the web" are what Lacey calls network-oriented 
computing. These take into account the latency and unreliability of the 
web. They also embrace the constraints of the web: URLs, hypertext as 
the engine of application state, and a very limited set of semantics for

accessing resources (GET, PUT, POST, DELETE).

OGC services are what Lacey would call network-indepedent computing 
(NIC) in that they attempt to abstract away the network. They try to 
provide equivalent interfaces across a bunch of "DCP Types", of which 
HTTP is just one. It's also my understanding that the OGC services had 
their origins in the CORBA/DCOM mindset of the 90s, back when a lot of 
enterprises were still skeptical about the Web.

Sean

Ron Lake wrote:
> Jason et al:
> 
> One thing that would help in these discussions is to understand what
one
> means when we say "for the web".  Clearly all OGC services are
intended
> to function on the web and do to transactions, interact with one
another
> etc across the Internet.  Do you mean a particular suite of
applications
> "on the web" ?  How are these applications distinguished?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Ron
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: georss-bounces at lists.eogeo.org
> [mailto:georss-bounces at lists.eogeo.org] On Behalf Of Jason Cupp
> Sent: October 10, 2007 3:52 AM
> To: georss at lists.eogeo.org
> Subject: Re: [georss] [Mass-Market-GEO] OpenSearch Geo - Feedback
> 
> Mass-market WWW began as static HTML pages... now it's AJAX, HTTP
> services, etc... it evolves. Our realization and use of the Web
changes
> overtime in re-re-re-interpretation of REST principals and whatever
> comes next. 
> 
> CSW was just right for it's time. Is it wrong for the Web NOW? Maybe,
> that's why we have working groups. Is OpenSearch right for the Web 20
> years from now? Maybe... maybe not. Can discovering GIS resources work
> using CSW. Yes. Should we try to gain greater appeal by adopting more
> suitable (accepted today) technology? Most think so. Would OpenSearch
do
> the trick? That's what we're trying to figure out...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charlie Savage [mailto:cfis at savagexi.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:08 PM
> To: Jason Cupp
> Cc: georss at lists.eogeo.org
> Subject: Re: [georss] [Mass-Market-GEO] OpenSearch Geo - Feedback
> 
> Hi Jason,
> 
>> Everyone is struggling to get a web search API just right for their
>> users;  CSW suffers the same way that all OGC services do in the
> growing
>> REST spotlight. For -which- web at -which- time, a moving target,
> until
>> people start getting real work done on top of it.
> 
> Let me cordially disagree with your comment about the web.  I only see

> one web - what other web are you seeing?
> 
> Also, I'm not sure what you mean by -which- time?  And I'm sure I
don't 
> understand your comment about "start getting real work done on top of 
> it."  On top of the web?  Really?
> 
> Charlie
> _______________________________________________
> georss mailing list
> georss at lists.eogeo.org
> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss
> _______________________________________________
> georss mailing list
> georss at lists.eogeo.org
> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss
> 

_______________________________________________
georss mailing list
georss at lists.eogeo.org
http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss
_______________________________________________
georss mailing list
georss at lists.eogeo.org
http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss

_______________________________________________
georss mailing list
georss at lists.eogeo.org
http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss