Hi Chris,
Thanks for the email!
On Aug 30, 2006, at 5:39 PM, Chris Higgins wrote:
Hi Jeroen,
Hope you had a nice holiday.
Yes, I had!
This email is a brief summary of the work we have been doing over the last few weeks, some questions and a request for some direction from you.
Andrew Robson has conducted further investigation of the incorporation of spatial queries into Lucene. We will summarise this in a document and pass to you. As this kind of sophisticated spatial queries this work entails is not required for minimal compliance with the ISO AP of CSW 2.0 we are not inclined to proceed with this at the moment. Andrew reckons there is about 2 months worth of work here. Happy to discuss this further.
OK, curious to read what Andrew came up with regarding the spatial queries.
At the moment, we feel our time is better spent testing and debugging. As Andrea knows and as you might have picked up from your email traffic, we have spent quite a lot of time in the last few weeks getting the GN CSW implementation up and running here. We would like to continue in this vein and help you achieve a robust reference implementation of the ISO AP of CSW 2.0 for OWS4. Do you agree this is a good idea?
Yes, its excellent to have serious testing done on your end and receive feedback on issues you identified.
Here are some more specific questions and issues:
- Are you committed to implementing the ISO AP for the OWS4 deadline in Dec? Our thinking is that there is still a fair amount of work needing to be done to achieve this.
Yes, we're committed and working on it.
- Do you have an internal deadline for implementing the ISO AP?
Beta 1 by the end of September, final release by the beginning of December.
- Our understanding is that, in order to be minimally compliant with Cat2 CSW (04-021r3), the BBOX operator must be supported (p122)?
Yes, and they already are.
- Do you believe that the current version of GN CSW implements BBOX according to the definition in the FE Spec (02-059), ie, "all geometries that spatially interact with the box in some manner (p10)"? I am asking so that we can be clear about what the software should do. As you will have guessed, we had some trouble getting this working.
Andrea is better to answer this one, although I think the answer is yes.
- The "GetRecords" request appears to work in some cases, but not others, eg, for Dublin core records its OK, FGDC has a bug and ISO19115 just doesn't seem to be implemented
Would you like us to work on fixing this?
If you find a bug and have the fix, they are very welcome. I suggest to file a bug to the issue tracker and mail a possible fix to the devel mailing list. Andrea can than review it and commit it to the CVS when accepted.
- The records that we are getting back (including ones we generate using GN) appear to be formatted to a much older version of 19139 than the recently ratified version...
Leave these two to Andrea. We are using the latest schema's and our test metadata was converted from old 19115 records into 19139 records. However, the test data are not part of the CVS, Andrea has them in a separate file. Maybe he can update the database files used by the installer to add sample data to the database.
I copied the geonetwork-devel mailing list for information. Don't hesitate to do the same when new issues come up that are relevant to the whole community.
Ciao,
Jeroen
Regards
Chris