Exchange Set Catalogue - Product specification

[HolgerBothien]

            <S100XC:productSpecification>
                <S100XC:productIdentifier>S-101</S100XC:productIdentifier>
                <S100XC:number>1</S100XC:number>
            </S100XC:productSpecification>

In S-100 it is stated that productIdentifier is: Machine readable unique identifier of a product type. To my interpretation it is the identifier as : INT.IHO.S-101.1.1 though the example in S-100 says just S-101 This is the mechanism to bind a dataset to a FC and PC. The version element is not mandatory and no specification are given how to do that.

The number element will be a mystery for me

1. What number is meant?
2. Where can I find it?
3. What is the use of it in an receiving system?
4. And why the hell it is mandatory?

In my catalogue it would look like:

      <S100XC:productSpecification>
        <S100XC:productIdentifier>INT.IHO.S-101.1.1</S100XC:productIdentifier>
        <S100XC:number>42</S100XC:number>
      </S100XC:productSpecification>

[DavidGrant-NIWC]

These elements are described in S-100 Part 17 S100_ProductSpecification:

The productIdentifier must match a Product ID from the registry:

In our test bed we are not currently using the exchange set discovery metadata to associate datasets with feature catalogs. Instead, we're using the version information embedded within the dataset encoding metadata. This is partially because the exchange set information is not currently correct, and partially because we feel using the encoding metadata is less prone to error. Using the encoding metadata is still not ideal because:

• There is some ambiguity about which FC is the "latest" for a given dataset.
  • (The number attribute in S100_ProductSpecification attempts to resolve this ambiguity).
  • We currently treat changes in the third digit of the version encoded in the 10a DSID/PRSP field as updates/corrections (new datasets are not required).
  • e.g., FC 1.1.1 replaces FC 1.1.0 for datasets which specify INT.IHO.S1-101.1.1"
  • Existing datasets should validate against the updated FC.
  • We currently treat changes in the first or second digit as new FC's which require new datasets.
• The different encodings (10a, 10b, 10c) have differing representations of the productIdentifier / version.
  • S-100 Part 10a does not require any particular format for the PRSP field:

[kusala9]

Suggest this is aligned with Part 10a PRED and PRSP fields, and documented in S-98 Annex C. Also, this can be aligned with the productSpecification fields in Part 10b to make it explicit. There is an existing issue over whether it should be 3 digits or two, i.e. 1.1.0 or 1.1 etc.. Either way they should match up and it will give us something concrete to base the versioning on.

[DavidGrant-NIWC]

The various encodings / exchange set are not aligned regarding how to identify a particular version of a product, mostly because there is still no agreement on how the versioning/version numbers will be maintained. It will be difficult to have singular guidance.

The current S-101 Part 10a encoding is (yet another) historical artifact carried forward from S-57. Those schemas that have a separate element to encode the edition number should not also be encoding the edition number in the product identifier element.

Part 10a:

Part 10b:

Part 10c:

Part 17: