- From: Raj Singh <rsingh@opengeospatial.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:56:38 -0600
- To: roBman@mob-labs.com
- Cc: "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>
On Sep 22, at 11:15 AM, Rob Manson wrote: >> - this whole idea of pointing to alternate versions of the same thing >> is starting to worry me. This is functionality that seems better >> suited to a service interface/negotiation and not something that >> should be encoded in the file. > > Do you mean the serialisation type? e.g. xml or json, etc. > > This is definitely one of the key points I'd like to discuss further. I > think you're absolutely right about content-type negotiation. HTTP > Headers, User Agents and Servers are best at handling that. > > I probably erred too much on the side of being explicit here. > Yes, the serialisation type, but also you mention possibly representing different coordinate reference systems. These are exactly the types of things OGC moves to a "Capabilities" document, which is one of the operations available on every OGC service. It always includes things like CRSes, output formats, and query capabilities. How about this idea. There's a link/href at the POIS level that points to this kind of capabilities information. This is much the same pattern as Atom Publishing Protocol too.
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2011 19:58:04 UTC