54
Copyright © 2007 Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
12.4 Programming Services
12.4.1 Comments on Programming ICD
Hereafter the list issues related to the Programming ICD: Confusion on document and schema versions
Schemas refer to 0.9.4, while the document does not provide its version number. Error handling
The reference to the exception specification of OGC Web Service Specification is wrong: the correct section is §8 and not §7.4 e.g. see §13.6, §14.6, 15.3.1, etc.
GetCapabilities response Not clear the meaning of the following fields:
sps:RequiresNotificationTarget sps:SubsequentGetFeasibilitySupported
wns:SupportedCommunicationProtocols wns:SupportedCommunicationFormats
Additionally seems missing a parameter specifying the support of WS-Addressing for asynchronous requests.
Tasking Parameters The section §8.2 describes the preliminary list of tasking parameters providing a
short description and type for each of them. It is missing the specification of which sps:definition to use i.e. what element of the following ones has to be used
for each the parameters:
o sps:commonData element, which implies SWECommon;
o sps:TaskMessageDefinition, which is not clear how does it work;
o sps:GeometryDefinition
o sps:ParameterDescriptor for nested parameters
Additionally for each of above elements further information is needed: o
in case of sps:commonData element, it is necessary to specify which SWECommon type has to be used e.g.: Count, Quantity, Text, Category,
TimeRange, DataRecord, etc. o
in case of sps:GeometryDefinition, it is necessary to specify whether it is a gml:Polygon or gml:Point etc..
o in case of nested parameters it is necessary to specify whether
swe:DataRecord or nested sps:ParameterDescriptor have to be used.
Copyright © 2007 Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
55 To be noted that SWECommon types allow defining complex and nested
structures without the need of using nested sps:ParameterDescriptor. In fact for example, the swe:DataRecord allows specifying elements that can
be simple or complex type as well; array are also supported.
Then it is suggested: o
either to complement that paragraph with a table specifying all above information for each identified parameter
o or provide a rule and a template XML file showing how the different
parameters have to be declared and set. Detailed comments on sps:ParameterDescriptor:
o sps:restriction can be removed because constraints can be defined directly
within SWE Common types. o
sps:cardinality is not described in the document. o
Parameter names are case sensitive? Detailed comments on preliminary identified tasking parameters:
o ―Urgence‖ to be corrected to ―Urgency‖. It is defined as Quality of service
but the values are not aligned with the OS EO [AD-02]. o
Polarization Mode to be clarified: what‘s the meaning of these values? D, Q, S, T, UNDEFINED.
This is a comment for GML Application schema rather than SPS EO.
o Clarification on SurveyPeriods:
If a sensor can be tasked by scenes and by coverage, how it can be encoded?
How the choice specified in §8.2.6 can be encoded when declaring the parameter?
o TemporalSeries: there is only the periodicity and not also the repetition
then the standing order will never finish. o
The tasking parameters for coverage orders are too few: in fact it is not possible to filter also by orbit, pass, track, frame which are currently
supported by the ESA Catalogue when computing future potential products.
―Estimate‖ Feasibility Level This level of feasibility analysis takes into account also meteorological data. It
looks not necessary because it is implicit when specifying the ―Validation Parameters‖. In fact when the tasking parameters include the accepted level of
snow or cloud coverage it implies automatically to use meteorological data. Then it is suggested to use only 2 levels e.g. ―Standard‖ and ―Full‖ when the mission
planning is also considered. GetFeasibility input parameters
It is not clear the purpose of ID element in the get feasibility request.
Get Feasibility Output Parameters In the current release of the Programming ICD it is not yet defined how scenes
strips calculated by the feasibility analysis are represented i.e. which parameters EO Product Metadata attributes have to be returned.