iho-ohi / S100Infrastructure

This repository is designated for user feedback on IHO S-100 Infra systems. Your comments will be reviewed by the Infra team for consideration and implementation.
9 stars 0 forks source link

Concerns on current xmlID implementation in the GI Registry #2

Closed alvarosanuy closed 1 month ago

alvarosanuy commented 5 months ago

https://github.com/S-101-Portrayal-subWG/Working-Documents/issues/9

Concerns on current xmlID implementation in the GI Registry raised by @DavidGrant-NIWC below:

<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

From: Grant, David M (52400) CIV USN NIWC ATLANTIC VA (USA) <david.m.grant22.civ@us.navy.mil>
Sent: Saturday, 27 January 2024 5:39 AM
To: Sanchez, Alvaro MR <alvaro.sanchez@defence.gov.au>; Jeff Wootton (IHO) <jeff.wootton@iho.int>
Cc: Hugh.Astle@Teledyne.com; Stamenkovich, Miroslav (52400) CIV USN NIWC ATLANTIC SC (USA) <miroslav.stamenkovich.civ@us.navy.mil>
Subject: xmlID values

 

We have an action to update the S-101 PC to use the xmlID values from the registry to ensure portrayal catalogs can work with one another (the same concept uses the same lookup in different PC’s).

 

Before I do this, should I use the currently registered xmlID’s which appear to be random numbers? For instance, the xmlID for viewing group 11050 is “915”. The xmlID for the over radar display plane is “1503”. My preference would be to have meaningful identifiers to make the PC easier to read and maintain.

 

Item | Current xmlID | Suggested xmlID -- | -- | -- Viewing Group 11050 | “915” | “11050” Display Plane over radar | “1503” | “OverRADAR” Display mode “Display Base” | “927” | “DisplayBase” Context parameter “Safety Depth” | “1459” | “SafetyDepth”

 

These xmlID values correspond to the “id” values embedded in PC’s. They are used to identify catalog entries:

xczx

image

image

iho-ohi commented 3 months ago

This requirement is now listed on the KHOA's project to update the interface of the GI registry. There are two issues that I understood:

  1. Interface: to allow character string in the xmlID (Aa-Az, _, 0-9)
  2. Update contents: incomplete and incorrect

    • No.1, please confirm the constraints as above. If the interface updated, who will update the contents with which format, PR_1234 or ? any impact?
    • No.2, regarding the update to the contents, it should be processed via the proposal.

Please response your confirmation or comment by 12 April 2024.

DavidGrant-NIWC commented 3 months ago
  1. Interface: to allow character string in the xmlID (Aa-Az, _, 0-9) [...] No.1, please confirm the constraints as above.

Recommend that underscore is not used (even if allowed) because the current portrayal catalog schema doesn't allow it in the definition of CatalogItem. Underscores may be allowed in future revisions of the portrayal catalog schema; the interface should not preclude their future use.

iho-ohi commented 1 month ago

In terms of the interface of the portrayal register, it has been updated as we agreed.

DavidGrant-NIWC commented 1 month ago

No.2, regarding the update to the contents, it should be processed via the proposal.

We need a registry proposal to update the xmlID of every viewing group / viewing group layer / etc., and also to update the xmlID's of any entries which might currently conflict with those proposed changes?