You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
as a user I may not be aware that it is a URI. Do I understand correctly that there are no assets linked to "to _om-profile-1/1.0/req/geojson" ? If there are no assets, why does it point to a WMO URI and not, for example, to a IETF one?
Can we qualify the user? The URI (and GeoJSON for that matter) is meant to be machine readable to be rendered for users, who would typically not see the URI, whose value is in machine parsing and validation to trigger validation / conformance. On Apr 17, 2023, at 03:43, Timo Pröscholdt ***@***.***> wrote:
as a user I may not be aware that it is a URI. Do I understand correctly that there are no assets linked to "to _om-profile-1/1.0/req/geojson" ? If there are no assets, why does it point to a WMO URI and not, for example, to a IETF one?
—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>
The output of bufr2geojson refers to an invalid URL: http://www.wmo.int/spec/om-profile-1/1.0/req/geojson
The right place for such definitions and schemas is schemas.wmo.int, def.wmo.int or possibly wis.wmo.int
www.wmo.int is reserved for the wmo website and not for management of technical artifacts
We should avoid creating dead links, we already have enough of them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: