Ticket #28 (closed task: fixed)

Opened 13 years ago

Last modified 13 years ago

[m] Upgrade moles schema to 1.2.4

Reported by: lawrence Owned by: ko23
Priority: blocker Milestone: MOLES_1.2.4
Component: MOLES Version:
Keywords: MOLES_Schema M06March24 M06April19 Cc:

Description (last modified by selatham) (diff)

To support polygons and data quality section, and sundry minor errors and fixes. Add Polygons to coverage type. Remove requirement for deployments' end date. Add Data Quality section. Modify security condition type. Release as tagged version on Subversion. Review period of 10 days.

Change History

comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by lawrence

  • Owner kon23 deleted
  • Type changed from defect to task

comment:2 Changed 13 years ago by lawrence

  • Owner set to ko23

comment:3 Changed 13 years ago by lawrence

  • Keywords M06March24 added

comment:4 Changed 13 years ago by selatham

  • Keywords M06April19 added

Have ready as a tagged directory in subversion.

comment:5 Changed 13 years ago by selatham

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:6 Changed 13 years ago by ko23

  • Status changed from new to closed
  • Resolution set to fixed

Gone

comment:7 Changed 13 years ago by lawrence

  • Summary changed from Upgrade moles schema to 1.2.4 to [m] Upgrade moles schema to 1.2.4

hi Kev

I reopened this, since you're still open for questions, and I'd like all the real questions to end up in this ticket ... (feel free to move some of them to new tickets on 1.2.5)

1) (I already asked this on the mailing list, but the ones that follow are new)

If I look at the citation data class, you've lost a lost of information that appears as optional in ISO19139/ISO19115.

Is there any reason why we can't go for a compromise between your solution (a list of authors) and mine (in NumSim), which is a choice of either a vanilla iso19139 citation, or a free text string. I guess the compromise would be to allow a modified free text string in which a list of authors appears. I'd prefer we fully supported bibtex citations in some future version ...

(2) As I look at dgSpatialCoverage, I think I would prefer to see any as the option rather than choice for dgVerticalExtent (I can imagine wanting to label as stratosphere and putting the dimensions in).

(3) dgCourse: why is it only a 2D concept? What about aircraft?

(4) Why are the members of dgInstrument explit in the schema? Can we not pass this out to an external vocab? What in general is the methodology for restricting enumerations to members of external vocabs. What's the plan for liasing with the vocab server in the longer run?

(more to come) :-)

comment:8 Changed 13 years ago by lawrence

  • Status changed from closed to reopened
  • Resolution fixed deleted

comment:9 Changed 13 years ago by ko23

  • Status changed from reopened to closed
  • Resolution set to fixed

1) Move to 1.2.5. As explained on list, population is already scary for some. Add extras with NumSim. 2) Excellent point: sorted. 3) dgCourse has 2D course under it. I expect to add 3D course (1.2.5); a map url is another possible type. Any others? 4) dgInstrument is a long-standing bugbear, that'll I'll sort IDC. The work happening elsewhere (!SensorML, Marine Platform/Sensor? Ontology, etc) will be input.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.