Closed heidivanparys closed 5 years ago
Would we also have to remove gml:name
?
Notes on my changes:
Would we also have to remove
gml:name
?
In my opinion, yes, and for the same reason: it is a mapping from UML to uml, not from GML to UML or from GML to GML.
From the GML standard:
The gml:name property provides a label or identifier for the object, commonly a descriptive name. [...] Often, a special identifier is assigned to an object by the authority that maintains the feature with the intention that it is used in references to the object. [...] gml:identifier is a predefined property for such identifiers.
In the INSPIRE model, properties with those semantics are modelled explicitly:
My comments so far on https://github.com/INSPIRE-MIF/2017.2/blob/master/GeoJSON/specification.md
General
Title
Introduction
Scope
Use cases
Technical Issues
INSPIRE Requirements for Encodings
Schema Conversion Rules
This way, it is not the 2017.2 group that expresses an opinion, but a quote from a peer-reviewed article. The quote addresses both the stability of the specification and the adoption of it by software vendors.
Reference (link to copies can be found via Google Scholar, I didn't want to include one of them here): PEZOA, Felipe, REUTTER, Juan L., SUAREZ, Fernando, UGARTE, Martín and VRGOČ, Domagoj. Foundations of JSON Schema. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2016. p. 263–273. WWW ’16. ISBN 978-1-4503-4143-1.
Conformance classes