Changes between Version 16 and Version 17 of MolesDiscussion


Ignore:
Timestamp:
01/08/06 16:28:46 (13 years ago)
Author:
lawrence
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • MolesDiscussion

    v16 v17  
    159159 
    160160Given we don't have any schema for IOC ISO19139, and the WMO ISO19139 is a tiny extension and no contraction, we should first look at the example documents, and decide how much we think we could get away with by  
    161  * exporting just the same content we have in a DIF, but in ISO19139, (i.e. requiring Kev to construct an appropriate xquery, which could simply be the DIF one minimallly changed so the output is in teh right places for 
    162 ISO19139) and 
     161 * exporting just the same content we have in a DIF, but in ISO19139, (i.e. requiring Kev to construct an appropriate xquery, which could simply be the DIF one minimallly changed so the output is in the right places for ISO19139) and 
    163162 * importing the WMO via a simple extension to BROWSE (bnl problem) 
    164163 
     
    167166It's quite clear that the MOLES data model needs to be in UML. Ideally we'd want to be able to autogenerate the schema via ShapeChange, but that's a ''long'' way away, meanwhile, the docs should make as much as possible clear with UML fragments. 
    168167 
    169 (KDO - 19115 was in UML: 19139 was then necessary. 'nuff said!) 
     168 * (KDO - 19115 was in UML: 19139 was then necessary. 'nuff said!) 
     169 * (BNL - true, but xml-schema alone isn't good enough either ... and the whole point of shapechange is that it encodes the decisions that are made about the actual xml-schema, 
     170but let's not go there now :-). 
    170171 
    171172