Skip to content
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

23-019 document update #183

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: 23-019
Choose a base branch
from
Open

23-019 document update #183

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

humaidkidwai
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.


An SensorThings API Server implementation can implement the full OData specification.
An OData client can access a SensorThings API service.
The OGC SensorThings API v2 interface is not an OData interface and does not claim to be an OData service. It specifies a subset of the OData interface, and extends it at the same time.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Git works on a per-line-basis, so avoid long lines. Once sentence per line gives the cleanest history and makes diffs easier to read.

@@ -37,10 +34,11 @@ image::images/GRP0001.png[Sensing Core, align="center"]
In this section, we define each entity depicted in <<img-sta-core>> and its relationships with other entities.
Additionally, we also provide examples to model the entities in different contexts.

[[thing]]
==== Thing
==== Requirement Class: Thing
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The [[thing]] anchor allows referencing this section. Not sure if we ever need to though, can always re-add the anchors.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

merge issue, will fix. Thanks for pointing!

@@ -893,7 +889,7 @@ Each Feature entity SHALL have the mandatory properties and MAY have the optiona
[%metadata]
identifier:: {identifier}/req/datamodel/sensing/feature/relations

Each Feature entity SHALL have the direct relation between a Feature entity and other entity types listed in Table {counter:table-num}.
Each Thing entity SHALL have the direct relation between a Thing entity and other entity types listed in Table XX.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm pretty sure this section is about Feature, not Thing?

Why change the {counter:table-num} to XX?
{counter:table-num} should give the number of the previous table.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks like a merge issue

@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
:sectnums: |,all|
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Don't change template things unless absolutely sure about it.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

got it

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If you delete images, make sure they are not used any more!
Currently the document can not be built.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

merge issues again :(

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Best not combine renaming with editing. It's not impossible to see what (if anything) was changed in this file.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The file did not have any content though, will try to be careful about it next time

Samplings may be generated by a sequence of SamplingProcedures (and vice-versa), however a Sampler must employ a unique SamplingProcedure to maintain unique Sampling-Sampler-SamplingProcedure relationships.
In scenarios where a Feature is not directly available for Sampling, a PreparationProcedure composed of multiple PreparationSteps may optionally be used to generate a PreparedFeature.
In order to generate Samplings, a Sampler, that may be any physical device (or even a human being part of a survey campaign), must carefully select a SamplingProcedure.
A Sampling may be generated by a SamplingProcedure. This SamplingProcedure can be used by multiple Samplers, however a Sampler can not use multiple SamplingProcedures. Hence, any Sampling that is generated by a Sampler is always associated with a unique SamplingProcedure.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One sentence per line please, hard to comment otherwise.

however a Sampler can not use multiple SamplingProcedures

Hmm, that may need fixing. I think some Samplers can implement many SamplingProcedures... However, a Sampling can only be created by a single one.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I agree with the Sampler->SamplingProcedure relationship. I was planning to discuss it in the telco today, good that you pointed this one out

In scenarios where a Feature is not directly available for Sampling, a PreparationProcedure composed of multiple PreparationSteps may optionally be used to generate a PreparedFeature.
In order to generate Samplings, a Sampler, that may be any physical device (or even a human being part of a survey campaign), must carefully select a SamplingProcedure.
A Sampling may be generated by a SamplingProcedure. This SamplingProcedure can be used by multiple Samplers, however a Sampler can not use multiple SamplingProcedures. Hence, any Sampling that is generated by a Sampler is always associated with a unique SamplingProcedure.
In scenarios where a Feature is not directly available for Sampling, a PreparationProcedure composed of multiple PreparationSteps may optionally be used to generate a PreparedSample (Feature entity).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In scenarios where a Feature is not directly available for Sampling

What does that mean?
From OMS: In addition, various preparation steps may be performed on samples both before and after observations are performed on the sample.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It means when a Feature is basically a prepared Feature (or Sample). For example, in case of water quality monitoring, it is not feasible to have the entire River Feature available to observe, a PreparationProcedure is applied to get a sample of water

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, preparation procedures are not used to create a sample. Sampling procedures create samples. Preparation procedures are applied to samples to prepare them for measuring, or to conserve them like with specimens.

@humaidkidwai
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I don't understand why are commits from March 20 included in this PR

@hylkevds
Copy link
Contributor

I don't understand why are commits from March 20 included in this PR

Probably because you based this PR on the commits from back then. You need to reset your working copy to the right branch/commit before making a new branch.

Copy link
Contributor

@hylkevds hylkevds left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is still this "sync local branch" commit (and 4 others) that should not be there.


[[who-should-use]]
=== Who should use the OGC SensorThings API
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That heading should not have been removed.

@hylkevds
Copy link
Contributor

There is still this "sync local branch" commit (and 4 others) that should not be there.

I've cherry-picked just the last commit onto the 23-019 branch, into a 23-019_documentation2 branch, you could use that one instead if you want.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants