European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

It seems that there is only one fully compliant solution to serve multiple harmonised datasets trough WFS 2.0

We investigated several solutions to serve multiple harmonised datasets trough WFS 2.0 according to Technical Guidelines for Download Services. We are not discussing about providing access to only one dataset per server, but to provide access to more datasets.

 

Update 8 September 2016: The single compliant solution seems to be Snowflake GoPublisher WFS.

 

Update 9 May 2018: Because Stefania pointed in this tread that that Deegree is able to serve two different datasets for the same XML schema at different endpoints (asking for typeNames=ps:ProtectedSites in both cases) we started some tests.

So, it is still to see if Deegree is able to serve two different datasets based on multiple XML schemas at different endpoints in order to say that Deegree is compliant with Requirement 52, but is a big step forward in fullfiling the Requirement 52. For those data providers that need to serve feature types from one application schema at one endpoint Deegree is fulfiling the Req 52. We did not tested it yet to see if there are not other issues in order to confirm that it is able to serve multiple harmonised datasets based on multiple XML schemas trough WFS 2.0 according to Technical Guidelines for Download Services. Versions 3.4-RC (unstable) are passing the EPSG in URI format test, while 3.3 (stable) are not passing the test as EPSG is provided in URN format. As Deegree versions 3.4-RC are advertised as unstable and as there is no 3.4 stable version, it is not sure if Deegree is passing all the requirments of the Technical Guidelines for Download Services. However it should be noted that Deegree 3.4 version is OCG WFS 2.0 certified. If anyone had tested Deegree against each requirement from the TG, please share this information.

To conclude about Geoserver 2.13.0, for those data providers that need to serve feature types from one XML schema at one and only one endpoint, Geoserver 2.13.0 is fulfiling the Req 52. Geoserver seems not to be able yet to serve feature types from the same XML schema  at different endpoints, even if using the newly created isolated workspaces.

 

Till 8 September 2016 we thought that Go Publisher WFS (version 4.0.2) is not fullfiling the TG Requirement 46 ”Implementations shall conform to ISO 19142 Conformance Class Simple WFS”, more precise the WFS DescribeFeatureType request is not providing the expected result. Daniel Cocanu discovered that this is not related to GoPublisher WFS but it is related to XSD version 3.0 schemas.

 

The second most compliant solution seems to be Geoserver.  Unfortunately it does not fulfill at least one requirement, namely Requirement 52 ”A separate WFS endpoint shall be provided for each INSPIRE dataset thus providing one dataset per GetCapabilities response.” Tested on version 2.8.3. 

On third place seems to be Deegree (very good for testing purposes as it alows to serve datasets from the GML stored in memory) and on forth place ESRI ArcGIS for INSPIRE. We did not tested any other solution and we do not know any other solution (probably FME from SAFE can be a solution as well). 

Does anyone knows how to provide separate WFS endpoints for each INSPIRE dataset with Geoserver? 

Does anyone know other solutions to be tested (i.e.: FME from Safe) ?

Deoes anyone know other INSPIRE TG Requirements or Recommandations that cant be fullfiled by existing solutions ?

Isnt'it quite strange that Technical Guidelines are setting requirements that cant be fullfiled by any existing solution ?

Best regards,

Iurie Maxim

  • Iurie MAXIM

    Hi Thorsten,

    Is this the bug that was fixed that you mentioned in your post ?

    https://osgeo-org.atlassian.net/browse/GEOT-5469

    I see that it was just fixed two days ago and it was reported almost one year ago

    http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/App-schema-problem-encoding-multi-valued-target-attribute-containing-only-client-properties-using-dea-td5227294.html

    Iurie

  • Katharina SCHLEIDT

    By Katharina SCHLEIDT

    Hi Iurie,

    thanks for pointing out that detail, hadn't realized that the namespace in the request URI screws the namespaces in the xml (live and learn!); guess worst case we'll have to run multiple geoserver instances in parallel. Other advantage of dedicated instances would be that one could avoid all the gratuitous namespaces that geoserver provides (all that are configured!)

    To my understanding one reason we do need something on the dataset within the URI is due to the lack of information in the ISO metadata; as this includes no information on the feature types included within the dataset, one is totally lost if one service serves multiple datasets (will be better with the harmonized services as we at least know what the core INSPIRE featureTypes are)

    :)

    Kathi

  • Iurie MAXIM

    Dear Kathi,

    Great that now the issue is easily understandable. As I mentioned at the begining of the discution "a work around is to make multiple Geoserver installations on the same machine, but of course the server must have a lot of resources for this, and of course this is not a desired solution."

    If reading the chapter "Configuring Multiple Geoserver instances on a single server" from this book you may find that "typicaly you should not consider adding more than four instances per server", therefore this cant be used in a typical implementation having in mind that a data provider has several datasets.

    Regarding Requirment 52 you may see a discution here. Currently the EC Validator seems to use this requirement while validating the name and content of the StoredQuerry for downloading the entire dataset according to the TG Recomandation 13 and Requirements 49-51.

    Best regards,

    Iurie Maxim

  • Iurie MAXIM

    Dear Kathi,

    Great that now the issue is easily understandable. As I mentioned at the begining of the discution "a work around is to make multiple Geoserver installations on the same machine, but of course the server must have a lot of resources for this, and of course this is not a desired solution."

    If reading the chapter "Configuring Multiple Geoserver instances on a single server" from this book you may find that "typicaly you should not consider adding more than four instances per server", therefore this cant be used in a typical implementation having in mind that a data provider has several datasets.

    Regarding Requirement 52 you may see a discution here. Currently the EC Validator seems to use this requirement while validating the name and content of the StoredQuerry for downloading the entire dataset, including metadata elements from the GetCapabilities request, according to the TG Recomandation 13 and Requirements 49-51. That's why solving these bugs is so important in order to allow Inspire WFS implementations based on Geoserver for multiple datasets:

    https://osgeo-org.atlassian.net/browse/GEOS-5512

    https://osgeo-org.atlassian.net/browse/GEOS-4773

    Best regards,

    Iurie Maxim

  • Iurie MAXIM

    And the reply from Andrea Aime (geo-solutions.it) related to this bug:

     

    aaimeAndrea Aime [Administrator] added a comment - 2 days ago

    Hi, the main issue is not understanding per se, it's that this bug is hard to fix, so hard that it resisted all (my) attempts at spare time fixes in the last 5 years. I cannot speak for others, but without a few days of work (thus, funded time) I know I won't be able to fix it.

  • Stefania MORRONE

    By Stefania MORRONE

    Hi Iurie,
    thank you for having posted such an interesting discussion!

    Hope it's ok for you I added the 'cross-cluster' tag, because what is being posted is valuable as well for all the clusters.

    I think it's essential for INSPIRE implementers to share their experiences and discuss about encountered issues to find relevant solutions.

    Best regards
    Stefania

  • Katharina SCHLEIDT

    By Katharina SCHLEIDT

    Hi Iurie,

    To bring this back to a more positive note, while it's very important to point out the problems, it's even more important to find solutions!

    It is getting better, when I look back to the Biodiversity Mashup we did for the 2010 conference I'm pretty impressed (at that time the only system vaguely capable of serving something INSPIRE-like was yet again Snowflake. more info at https://inspire-forum.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pg/groups/13847/first-inspire-mashup-event-creating-new-apps-for-biodiversity/)

    As for finding solutions, this also tends to require finding funding (reason we have the GeoServer App Schema extension is that while the EU complained, the Aussies at CSIRO just threw some money at some guys to get on with stuff). I've long been trying to see how various MS could cooperate on making OS Tools usable by all - maybe a topic for the Workshop: Financing the Evolution of Spatial Data Infrastructures this year in Barcelona: http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2016/schedule/submissions/383.html

    Other question - have you found the legal basis for requirement 52? While it's clearly stated in the guidance, I can't find the background in the IRs. Am wondering if this is really a sensible solution. On the one side I understand the necessity as there's no reference to the relavant feature types in the metadata but on the other side this could be solved differently, i.e. including information on the feature types in the metadata. thoughts?

    :)

    Kathi

     

  • Iurie MAXIM

    Hi Kathi,

    I agree that is important to find solutions. It seems that one solution is to use Snowflake Go Publisher WFS with Oracle Database. The requirements that are not passed by Snowflake are not critical and currently the EC Validator is not finding these issues. It seems that even there are no ATS to completly verify that ”Implementations shall conform to ISO 19142 Conformance Class Simple WFS”.

    It is good that you remembered about the 2010 in Krakow, Poland. At that time we made the GML for Protected Sites with Go Publisher and presented this at the conference http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2010/presentations/47_pdf_presentation.pdf. At that time there was no solution from Snowflake for WFS. It took another 5 years to provide the WFS.

    From that time we tried different implementations by using Oracle, MS SQL and PostGIS as databases and Go Publisher, Geoserver with app-schema, Deegree and ArcGIS for INSPIRE for serving WFS. We used HALE as well in conjunction with app-schema, but we switched to Notepad++ for the mapping in app-schema that cant be done with HALE. We did not tested yet FME from SAFE, but we think that it is a good candidate.

    As regarding Metadata for the services the only solution we used was Notepad++.

    I am understanding the fact that finance is needed, but I think that first of all the Commission must do something in this sense, because the Commission is requiring and put a lot of pressure on Member States (MS) to meet heir obligations.

    Unfortunately the latest Commission Report from July 2016 does not recognize the fact that MS have a lot of problems while trying to meet their obligations that are not MS dependent.

    Regarding Requirement 52, it seems that there is no legal basis. But there are a lot of requirements that have no legal basis.

    My explanation why Requirement 52 exist is found in the schema below, but this is not so well explained in the TGs and this is as well one of the reasons in conjunction with Stored Querries  why several services are not passing the EC Validator tests. I expected either from TGs to understand why certain Requirements exist or at least somebody from this forum to provide certain explanations.

    Best regards,

    Iurie Maxim

  • Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

    By Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

    Dear all,

    Thank you all for an interesting discussion.

    I agree. There's still a lot to do on the software side to help MS in INSPIRE compliant WFS service creation and I also think that making comparions of software and raising awareness about challenges is the first step towards finding solutions. And as far as I know, Go Publisher again doesn't support the making/editing to acheive the extended capabililities required for WFS by INSPIRE (eg. metadata links).

    FYI, a link to another, similar, but narrower discussion at the TC:

    https://themes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/discussion/view/43639/associating-landcoverunit-instances-to-their-parent-landcoverdataset-instances-for-wfs-filtering

    Another good place to discuss could be the following INSPIRE Conference workshop:

    http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2016/schedule/submissions/342.html

    Best regards,

    Lena

     

     

  • Iurie MAXIM

    Hi Lena,

    Thank you for indicating the discussion on landcover that found the same problem with GeoServer almost one year ago,

    As regards GoPublisher WFS, at least from version 4.0.2 that we are using, there are solutions to serve a GetCapabilities metadata document with extended capabilities as it can be seen at this link:

    http://inspire.biodiversity.ro/WFS/RO_ENV_PS/wfs?service=wfs&version=2.0.0&request=GetCapabilities

    that shows these Extended Capabilities

    <ows:ExtendedCapabilities>
    <inspire_dls:ExtendedCapabilities>
    <inspire_common:MetadataUrl>
    <inspire_common:MediaType>application/vnd.ogc.csw.GetRecordByIdResponse_xml</inspire_common:MediaType>
    </inspire_common:MetadataUrl>
    <inspire_common:SupportedLanguages>
    <inspire_common:DefaultLanguage>
    <inspire_common:Language>rum</inspire_common:Language>
    </inspire_common:DefaultLanguage>
    </inspire_common:SupportedLanguages>
    <inspire_common:ResponseLanguage>
    <inspire_common:Language>rum</inspire_common:Language>
    </inspire_common:ResponseLanguage>
    <inspire_common:Code>PS.AriiProtejate</inspire_common:Code>
    <inspire_common:Namespace>RO.ENV</inspire_common:Namespace>
    </inspire_dls:SpatialDataSetIdentifier>
    </inspire_dls:ExtendedCapabilities>
    </ows:ExtendedCapabilities>
     
    If I remember well, GoPublisher WFS was not able to serve extended capabilities in versions prior to 4.0, but this information need to be verified. I just remember that we had several issues, we wrote some emails to Snowflake software and we were adviced to use the latest 4.0 version at that time and to open several tickets. As now I am looking at the tickets, that I made publicly in this discution as well, there  is none dealing with extended capabilities.
     
    Hope this information helps you and others.
     
    It is good as well that you provided the link to the workshop at the INSPIRE Conference as it is covering simmilar topics as this discution.
     
    Best regards,
     
    Iurie

This discussion is closed.

This discussion is closed and is not accepting new comments.

Biodiversity & Area Management

Biodiversity & Area Management

If themes like Protected Sites, Area Management/Restriction/Regulation Zones and Reporting Units, Habitats and Biotopes, Species Distribution, Bio-geographical Regions matters to you, join these groups!