search

iho-ohi / S-102-Product-Specification

It is opened to develop S-102 Bathymetric Surface Product Specification. The contents of this repository are not offical publication in force, therefore please check the final version on the IHO website.
Other
29 stars 12 forks source link

PT19 - Changes to 3.0.0 #123

Closed RohdeBSH closed 2 months ago

RohdeBSH commented 2 months ago

Changes to edition 3.0.0 as requested by PT19.

RohdeBSH commented 2 months ago

The FC is currently valid. It is not mandatory to specify the TAG “definitionReference”. Nevertheless, it is of course not a good option to omit the reference for the “iD” attribute to the IHO registry. This must be corrected in any case after approval for this attribute.

The BSH is currently in contact with the KHOA to check the possibility of obtaining the value for the “sourceIdentifier” TAG prior to approval.

RohdeBSH commented 2 months ago

The FC remains as it is, as it is not possible to determine the "sourceIdentifier" TAG before the approval time has expired.

DavidGrant-NIWC commented 2 months ago

According to S-100 Ed. 5.2.0 clause 17-4.2 Figure 17-3 & Figure 17-4 the file names of the FeatureCatalogues only starts with the product specification number without “S-“.

RohdeBSH commented 2 months ago

According to S-100 Ed. 5.2.0 clause 17-4.2 Figure 17-3 & Figure 17-4 the file names of the FeatureCatalogues only starts with the product specification number without “S-“.

* There is no issue with renaming the catalog but note that the cited figure is just one example.

  * The example is only applicable to catalogs distributed via an exchange set.
  * Exchange set producers may rename content as they see fit.
  * Note that the name of the catalog is specified in CATALOG.XML; applications should not rely on any particular naming convention.

* In general, there is no catalog naming convention that I'm aware of although the PS or IHO policy could dictate one.

Hi @DavidGrant-NIWC ,

I know it's just an example and there is no naming convention. But I don't think it's correct and appropriate just because it's possible to deviate from the example. In my opinion, that only creates confusion. That's why I think it's correct for us to take this very simple route to avoid any questions arising in the first place. It doesn't cost us anything. I would like to see a naming convention that is prescribed by the IHO or S-100.