Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Problem: configure layernames according to "Data Specification on Elevation" - Elevation model View service #78

Closed
sebros123 opened this issue Mar 3, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@sebros123
Copy link

Hi,

We encounter a problem when we try to follow the layernamestandard in the data specification,
we do not think that the layers we have in our service are correct agree with the layernames defined in the data specification.

Our service contains these layers:
"Terränglutning" = Terrain slope
image

"Terrängskuggning" = hill shading
image

How can we best match with these layersnames?

image

best regards, Sebastian

@sMorrone
Copy link
Collaborator

Dear @sebros123
in case the data has been harmonised, you have to use the name of related spatial data object type. However, keep in mind that according to endorsed change in Req. 39 of the View Service TG "The layer name can be “as is”, in case the data served are not harmonised according to [INS DS]". The idea being discussed and already implemented for testing in the staging instance of the Validator - see issue #39 - is that a harmonised View service can serve both as-is and harmonised data, only the latter being obliged to follow the IR naming rules. The Validator will then check for the presence of at least one layer with conforming name.
Hope this helps

@sMorrone
Copy link
Collaborator

I am moving this issue to the "Discussions" tab and classify it as "Q&A"

@INSPIRE-MIF INSPIRE-MIF locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 20, 2022
@sMorrone sMorrone converted this issue into discussion #89 Apr 20, 2022

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants