Hi Robert,
we have to distinguish between the format of the query and the
queried fields. The format is like this: field1='aaa' AND field2<20.
When I say that the parser is trivial, I mean that it can handle simple
formats like the previous one: that is simple clauses (field1='aaa')
connected by AND and OR operators (even nested). The parser neither
handles strings that contain spaces (like field1='aaa bbb') nor more
complex constructes that uses spatial operators.
Regarding the queriable fields, you have:
- identifier
- title
- subject
- abstract
- modified
- type
- format
- bounding box
...
There are no fields named 'mission' and 'sensor' into the OGC
standard (both core and iso profile) so you cannot query these fields.
Cheers,
Andrea
Hi Andrea,
Many thanks for your reply. Please could you provide me with more
information on the following: 'The CQL parser is pretty trivial (it uses
a small existing parser). You cannot handle complex queries with that.' ?The kind of query we are interested in making (as a minimum) would
include the following query criteria:
- mission
- sensor
- rectangular geographical area
- 'to-from' dateDoes the CQL parser require more development to support a query like
that described above?Thanks,
RobAndrea Carboni wrote:
>Hi Robert,
>
>here is the current status (and issues) of the CSW implementation:
>
>- The new ISO 19139 has been taken into account to implement the CSW.
> Because this standard is not final yet, we used the schema present at the
> address http://www.isotc211.org/schemas/2005 which is updated up to March
> 2006.
>
>- We used the ISO profile which is not final yet. This leads to some anomalies
> that we hope to fix in the near future. Without fixing these, I don't think that
> a catalogue implementation can effectively communicate with another.
>
>- The implementation is almost finished. We have implemented the following
> operations: GetCapabilities, DescribeRecord, GetRecordById, GetRecords.
> What is missing is:
> - the DescribeRecord is not finished because it is not clear what it should return.
> - the stylesheet to convert a filter expression into a lucene query (for the
> GetRecords operation)
>
>- The CQL parser is pretty trivial (it uses a small existing parser). You cannot
> handle complex queries with that.
>
>- The CSW code is modularized into client-common-server modules. There is a
> client GUI to test CSW capabilities and a small common library to simplify
> the development of Java clients.
>
>- We have almost finished a set of stylesheets to convert from the ISO19115 to the
> ISO19139 standard.
>
>- Before releasing GeoNetwork 2.1 we have to decide how to manage the editor because
> the XML schema of the 19139 is pretty complex and our parser is not strong enough.
> We have to decide between improving the parser (and delaying release 2.1) or not.
>
>- At the workshop we will decide how to drive both the specification and the
> implementation of the CSW.
>
>Cheers,
>Andrea
>
>
>
>>Dear Robert Jones,
>>
>>Thanks for your email!
>>
>>The CSW 2 interfaces have been implemented on GeoNetwork opensource
>>for release in version 2.1. We have some related parts of the
>>application that are currently upgraded to support the ISO19139
>>formatted metadata before we can release 2.1. The source code for the
>>CSW2 implementation is available in the HEAD of the CVS on
>>sourceforge. The implementation is based on the ISO19115/19119 profile.
>>
>>I have copied Andrea Carboni who is working on the implementation, he
>>can provide feedback on what the status is. I also copied the
>>GeoNetwork developers mailing list for information.
>>
>>Due to an upcoming workshop we have next week, I'm not sure how quick
>>Andrea is able to react.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Jeroen
>>
>>_______________________
>>Jeroen Ticheler
>>FAO-UN
>>Tel: +39 06 57056041
>>http://www.fao.org/geonetwork
>>42.07420°N 12.34343°E
>>
>>
>>On Apr 18, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Robert William Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Dear Sir/Madam,
>>>
>>>We are interested in becoming involved in the development of
>>>GeoNetwork OpenSource 2, specifically the CSW 2 interface element.
>>>I note that the presentation at this URL - http://y.eogeo.org/files/
>>>eogeo2005/7-ticheler-eogeo-2005.ppt - states that release 2.1 will
>>>include the CSW 2 interface. If possible, please could you inform
>>>me how far development has progressed towards CSW 2 compliance, and
>>>whether there is a chance of a release including the interface in
>>>the near future?
>>>
>>>Many thanks,
>>>Robert Jones
>>>
>>>Robert William Jones
>>>Software Engineer
>>>
>>>ComSine Limited
>>>Telephone: + 44 (0) 1483 457121
>>>Fax: + 44 (0) 1483 304836
>>>Mobile: +44 (0) 7939 295868
>>>www.comsine.com
>>>
>>>*Please Note:*
>>>This text is confidential. If you are not the named addressee, it
>>>could
>>>be unlawful for you to read, copy, distribute, disclose or use the
>>>information contained herewith. If you are not the intended recipient
>>>please telephone +44 (0) 1483 457121.
>>>
>>>