Separate conceptual/logical levels of models ?

oertz commented 2 years ago

May be also learn lessons of the on-going discussions in coverages.swg@lists.ogc.org with the thread entitled "Conceptual Modelling and Coverages". Also consider results from T17 about UML modeling.

jerstlouis commented 2 years ago

It would be great if we define SymCore and extensions at the conceptual, logical and physical (encoding level). This allows for different types of interoperability (e.g. lossless when the same logical model is used, but still able to achieve good results even if interoperability is only at the conceptual level).

jerstlouis commented 1 year ago

After more thinking on this, I think we would want to avoid duplicating everything into separate conformance classes or documents for conceptual and logical models.

What we need to clarify is that:

Implementations conform with SymCore if they are an Encoding that can be mapped to the Logical Model described (even if they do not implement that exact logical model directly), so it is in this sense that it is "Conceptual".
We may define an Encoding that has a very direct and simple mapping to the Logical Model defined in SymCore.
SymCore is an OGC Implementation Standard rather than an OGC Abstract Topic, so in this sense it is not "purely conceptual"

opengeospatial / styles-and-symbology

Separate conceptual/logical levels of models ? #6