SECORE: disallow and flag nested composition

[Peter Baumann]

as per OGC Abstract Topic 2, compound CRSs shall not contain compounds again - hence, no recursion in CRS URL composition.

SECORE should have a check on this in the resolver, it should return a suitable exception.

[Peter Baumann]

adjusted component.

[Peter Baumann]

oops, seems I inadvertently changed the owner. Undoing that.

[Bang Pham Huu]

As Dimitar has suggested before, so I will take this ticket and try to understand SECORE.

[Bang Pham Huu]

Hi Prof. Peter,

I'd like to ask for your clarification about "nested composition" as I and Dimiar has different perspectives:

+ Dimitar thinks an exception should be thrown in this case (nested "crs-compound" flag in URL).

http://localhost:8088/def/crs-compound?
1=http://localhost:8088/def/crs-compound?1=...

+ I think an exception should be thrown in this case (nested "crs type: GeodeticCRS, ProjectedCRS, TemporalCRS,…" as from Compound CRS definition of OGC). So 2 or more CRS types can be combined but not "duplicate CRS types" as (GeodeticCRS + GeodeticCRS) as below:

http://localhost:8088/def/crs-compound?
1=http://localhost:8088/def/crs/EPSG/0/4326&
2=http://localhost:8088/def/crs/EPSG/0/4326

Please help us with your consideration.

[Dimitar Misev]

I think it's clear from this in the description:

compound CRSs shall not contain compounds again - hence, no recursion in CRS URL composition

+ I think an exception should be thrown in this case (nested "crs type: GeodeticCRS, ProjectedCRS, TemporalCRS,…" as from Compound CRS definition of OGC). So 2 or more CRS types can be combined but not "duplicate CRS types" as (GeodeticCRS + GeodeticCRS) as below:

I think we discussed this in another ticket as well. It's an unnecessary restriction, and I'm not sure what's the reason for it. This ticket is not suitable for this however, we should open a new ticket.

[Dimitar Misev]

This ticket can be closed actually, as secore now throws an exception when a compound CRS contains further compound CRS.