Use Advanced Search to search the entire archive.
[jsr363-experts] Re: Section 5 (Implementation): Range should move in the "example" section
- From: Werner Keil <
>
- To: "
" <
>
- Subject: [jsr363-experts] Re: Section 5 (Implementation): Range should move in the "example" section
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 13:15:00 +0100
Anyway both are currently in the RI module.
Somewhere along the lines of JSR 354, should we really identify classes (be
it Measurement, Range+QuantityRange or others) that the RI could do
without, then a reusable library in "uom-lib" (JSR 310 called that
"Extras") may hold some of them.
At this stage (0.7 tag) they are both in the RI, so let's leave them there.
If moved out into a library, then these types (and diagrams if any) would
simply disappear from the spec.
Werner
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Martin Desruisseaux <
>
wrote:
>
>
Le 17/12/14 19:18, Werner Keil a écrit :
>
> We apply a pattern or "Spec" defined by OGC in that case, so I would
>
> not deprive it by saying it's just an example.
>
> What about other OCG specs, does GeoAPI call all of them "example"?;-)
>
In GeoAPI, classes that are not part of the spec. are clearly in a
>
"example" module. Classes from the reference implementation are not even
>
mentioned.
>
>
> It would be exactly the same case with Measurement btw.
>
I admit that the frontier is not clear. But Measurement is closely
>
related to a "Unit of Measurement" spec., while Range is more like a
>
"bonus".
>
>
Martin
>
>