search

ISO-TC211 / ISO19110

Revision of ISO19110
0 stars 0 forks source link

Requirement for l.o.a. feature type #15

Closed jetgeo closed 8 years ago

jetgeo commented 9 years ago

Section 6.1 if level of abstraction is feature type, shouldn't there be a requirement for at least one featuretype in a catalogue? This is inconsistent with cardinality of 0..* on aggregatation from featureCatalogue to FeatureType in the UML.

jetgeo commented 9 years ago

I would say that I agree to this. Quote: "The basic level of abstraction in a feature catalogue SHALL be the feature type." I believe the association from FC_FeatureCatalogue to FC_FeatureType should be 1..* fig b1 - conceptual model of a feature catalogue

DaveDanko commented 9 years ago

I agree you should change the featureType constraint to 1..* I'm concerned about all the bidirectional relationships, I can see them being used with FC_FeatureType and FC_FeatureRelationship but do we need them elsewhere? or even a roll name/constraint on one (non-directed) end of the relationship? doesn't this create a lot of unused elements?

jetgeo commented 8 years ago

Changed multiplicity. Bidirectional relationships need further discussion.