Replies: 19 comments
-
|
Dear @nmtoken Thank you for your comments. We do not really understand what is the problem you are facing here. As you mentioned above, the test fails because the path to the ExtendedCapabilities section differs with the expected one. You have provided already, in issue 55, a valid example of the location of the ExtendedCapabilities section in: http://ogc2.bgs.ac.uk/cgi-bin/GEMAS/ows?SERVICE=WCS&acceptVERSIONs=2.0.1&REQUEST=GetCapabilities& Please, could you clarify us what is the error you have found? Regards |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The issue is that the expected XPath is too strict.
The tested service is schema valid and includes an extended capabilities section. It is perhaps ironic that it's the principal service I was using when editing the WCS TG, it shouldn't fail the test.
EDIT
The service conforms to the requirements specified in the technical guidance, (where there is no XPath given to the location of the ExtendedCapabilities section, just relative paths within it)
…-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Navarro <[email protected]>
Sent: 05 June 2019 15:41
To: inspire-eu-validation/community <[email protected]>
Cc: Passmore, James H. <[email protected]>; Mention <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [inspire-eu-validation/community] Errror in WCS Core test: The ExtendedCapabilities section shall be provided in the path (#56)
Dear @nmtoken <https://github.com/nmtoken>
Thank you for your comments.
We do not really understand what is the problem you are facing here.
As you mentioned above, the test fails because the path to the ExtendedCapabilities section differs with the expected one.
You have provided already, in issue 55, a valid example of the location of the ExtendedCapabilities section in: http://ogc2.bgs.ac.uk/cgi-bin/GEMAS/ows?SERVICE=WCS&acceptVERSIONs=2.0.1&REQUEST=GetCapabilities&
Please, could you clarify us what is the error you have found?
Regards
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/inspire-eu-validation/community/issues/56?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAM5JW7U5H3UUOWKOX4ANY3PY7F6ZA5CNFSM4HPBSPE2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODW75S4A#issuecomment-499112304> , or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAM5JW4DM6OPOKHDEISGGNDPY7F6ZANCNFSM4HPBSPEQ> . <https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AAM5JW42S44QAOJKL7FU7RTPY7F6ZA5CNFSM4HPBSPE2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODW75S4A.gif>
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the named recipients. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this email or any of its attachments and should notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system.
UK Research and Innovation has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise risk of this email or any attachments containing viruses or malware but the recipient should carry out its own virus and malware checks before opening the attachments. UK Research and Innovation does not accept any liability for any losses or damages which the recipient may sustain due to presence of any viruses.
Opinions, conclusions or other information in this message and attachments that are not related directly to UK Research and Innovation business are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of UK Research and Innovation.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Dear @nmtoken Thank you for opening this issue. We have discussed about it and it is agreed to be consistent with WFS. Therefore, the ExtendedCapabilities section shall be provided in exactly this path: /Capabilities/OperationsMetadata/ExtendedCapabilities/ExtendedCapabilities The TG will be updated to reflect this (at the moment, this is not included in the WCS TG). Regards |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'm not sure I understand the comment Are you saying that the XPath you currently have is the same as used by WFS and that it must be used by WCS too, seems over draconian. /Capabilities/OperationsMetadata/ExtendedCapabilities/ seems semantically incorrect, as the ExtendedCapabilites section does not define Operations Metadata. The correct location (wcsAll.xsd) for adding additional information (such as application profiles, and extensions) is wcs:Extension as in the example tested. As inspire_dls.xsd, doesn't itself define a location for it's inclusion, only the metadata, it seems quite odd to change the TG to force a less semantically correct view. Pragmatically better to leave the TG as is with respect relative paths to required metadata defined in inspire_dls.xsd. Then leave it up to implementers to decide where best to add the extension, as long as it's schema valid. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Dear James, to clarify - the resolution mentioned by Daniel was discussed with the validator team here at JRC. The argumentation was that the ows:Capabilities schema (http://schemas.opengis.net/ows/2.0/owsGetCapabilities.xsd), on which also the wcs:Capabilities build, already includes an ExtendedCapabilities element in the operations metadata (http://schemas.opengis.net/ows/2.0/owsOperationsMetadata.xsd). This is already used in the WFS implementations, so we propose to use it also in other OWS-based implementations like the WCS, for consistency. But probably this should be discussed and confirmed by the 2017.4 sub-group. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks Michel for the clarification. It is is perhaps slightly odd that you are referencing OWS common 2 for WFS, as even WFS 2.0 the interface standard doesn't reference OWS Common 2, but rather uses OWS Common 1.1.0 (OGC 06-121r3:2009). We could have a wider discussion about semantics sometime, but The ExtendedCapabilites in OperationsMetadata of OWS common 2, is intended ...to provide metadata about any additional server abilities. which I take to mean additional operations of a server, like GetStyles, PutStyles, GetTransect, GetTimeseries, GetVerticalProfile.. that are offered by a service but not part of the specification operations. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
OK, but the structure of the OperationsMetadata element is the same in OWS Common 1.1.0. But I agree that we should have a discussion whether this is the right place for including the INSPIRE extended capabilities. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As mentioned in 2017.4 meeting 2019-07-16, I forward this issue to some experts in Germany. As soon as I received a feedback, I will post this here. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
2017.4 meeting 2019-07-17
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The question perhaps arises as to whether the location defined for WFS is actually correct, and if it isn't how will it align to the WCS position. More relevant perhaps is the adoption of OGC API-Features (WFS 3) this will have a completely different structure, I think, and is another reason why we shouldn't be too prescriptive of where the data is, rather that the data exists and is correct. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Feedback from our national experts: We totally agree with the previous comments, because:
Furthermore from our point of view, there are no conclusive arguments for locating the Extended Capabilities on a different path than it already is in case of WFS. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It is not in dispute that there is a location for an (as opposed 'the') ExtendedCapabilities section in the OWS schema used by WCS 2. The issue is that the this ExtendedCapabilities is for Operations Metadata, and the INSPIRE extended capabilities section does not provide Operations Metadata. WCS 2 provides another location as an extension to the service metadata, to place such ExtendedCapabilities. I have also been in contact with German experts on WCS and they agree with this point of view |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Dear all, |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Dear all, Regards |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Dear all, Since this issue had no interaction time ago, we decided to close it. Please feel free to open a new one if needed. Thank you and best regards. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
So feed back was sought and received, what now for a solution to the issue? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Dear all, a short note that there has been a successful WCS validation. The extended INSPIRE information is provided as specified in the TG under https://inspire.rasdaman.org/rasdaman/ows#/services While formally valid according to the WCS Schema to place this information under |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
To my view, this thread (as well as #660) can both be closed as resolved. If data providers wish to utilize the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Since there is a long discussion here still open, I am converting this issue into a discussion. If there is agreement on how to proceed, we will open a new issue. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Using a static copy of GetCapabilities response for a non-public service WCS 2.0.1 service
Using the staging-inspire-validator
Opera
Version:60.0.3255.95
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/73.0.3683.103 Safari/537.36 OPR/60.0.3255.95
http://staging-inspire-validator.eu-west-1.elasticbeanstalk.com/etf-webapp/v2/TestRuns/EID2a1be7ca-76e8-46ef-81e1-23ab778246c2.html?lang=en#EIDe48e116f-016a-1000-ba75-f9ae74149ad9
The issue reported is The ExtendedCapabilities section shall be provided in the path: /Capabilities/OperationsMetadata/ExtendedCapabilities/ExtendedCapabilities
The example GetCapabilities document though has
at /wcs:Capabilities/wcs:ServiceMetadata[1]/wcs:Extension[1]/ows:ExtendedCapabilities[1]/*[namespace-uri()='http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/schemas/inspire_dls/1.0' and local-name()='ExtendedCapabilities'][1] which is schema valid
the name of the Test that failed or better: change the
Level of Detailthe URL of your service / the file you have uploaded or referenced (as
an attachment).
http://ogcdev.bgs.ac.uk/WCS/ESexample.xml
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions