I am very thankful WFS 2.0 and Filter 2.0 have been implemented. I’m studying their capabilities and have 2 questions:
1 - I see in the the WFS 2.0 capabilities document that for temporal operators AnyInteracts is not listed. According to the Filter 2.0 specification the definition is as follows:
Applicable to TM_Period only, the temporal operator fes:AnyInteracts is a shortcut operator semantically equivalent to NOT (Before OR Meets OR MetBy OR After).
Because all the necessary operators (NOT, OR, Before, Meets, MetBy, After) are supported, I assume it should be a straightforward matter to simulate AnyInteracts by using these operators when composing the filter, right? Could someone please assert this? Would there be any disadvantages or limitations?
2 - I once used WFS 1.1 of Geoserver in a project and the filter then worked really well. To me it was almost like a fully functional mapping to the SQL conditions without limitations. Does filter 2.0 have any limitations compared with its 1.1 counterpart before?
I am very thankful WFS 2.0 and Filter 2.0 have been implemented. I’m studying their capabilities and have 2 questions:
1 - I see in the the WFS 2.0 capabilities document that for temporal operators AnyInteracts is not listed. According to the Filter 2.0 specification the definition is as follows:
Applicable to TM_Period only, the temporal operator fes:AnyInteracts is a shortcut operator semantically equivalent to NOT (Before OR Meets OR MetBy OR After).
Because all the necessary operators (NOT, OR, Before, Meets, MetBy, After) are supported, I assume it should be a straightforward matter to simulate AnyInteracts by using these operators when composing the filter, right? Could someone please assert this? Would there be any disadvantages or limitations?
Hmm… not sure, but I had a quick look into the SQL encoder and indeed this particular temporal filter
does not seem to be supported.
May well just be an oversight. Justin (cc’ed) implemented temporal filter support, he probably knows more.
2 - I once used WFS 1.1 of Geoserver in a project and the filter then worked really well. To me it was almost like a fully functional mapping to the SQL conditions without limitations. Does filter 2.0 have any limitations compared with its 1.1 counterpart before?
No, all WFS versions end up being summarized into the same object model, so a filter is encoded into SQL for WFS 1.1 will be
encoded into SQL also for WFS 2.0
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Andrea Aime
<andrea.aime@anonymised.com>wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Nhan Vo <nhanvo@anonymised.com> wrote:
Hi list,
I am very thankful WFS 2.0 and Filter 2.0 have been implemented. I'm
studying their capabilities and have 2 questions:
1 - I see in the the WFS 2.0 capabilities document that for temporal
operators *AnyInteracts *is not listed. According to the Filter 2.0
specification the definition is as follows:
*Applicable to TM_Period only, the temporal operator fes:AnyInteracts is
a shortcut operator semantically equivalent to NOT (Before OR Meets OR
MetBy OR After).*
Because all the necessary operators (NOT, OR, Before, Meets, MetBy,
After) are supported, I assume it should be a straightforward matter to
simulate *AnyInteracts *by using these operators when composing the
filter, right? Could someone please assert this? Would there be any
disadvantages or limitations?
Hmm.. not sure, but I had a quick look into the SQL encoder and indeed
this particular temporal filter
does not seem to be supported.
May well just be an oversight. Justin (cc'ed) implemented temporal filter
support, he probably knows more.
Yeah, looks like an oversight. The filter class exists and is implemented
as per the spec but its not listed in the caps doc (which
happens statically) and not handled natively by any datastores.
2 - I once used WFS 1.1 of Geoserver in a project and the filter then
worked really well. To me it was almost like a fully functional mapping to
the SQL conditions without limitations. Does filter 2.0 have any
limitations compared with its 1.1 counterpart before?
No, all WFS versions end up being summarized into the same object model,
so a filter is encoded into SQL for WFS 1.1 will be
encoded into SQL also for WFS 2.0