UDDF Export Format

Long, Martin martin at longhome.co.uk
Tue Dec 9 05:29:54 PST 2014


Hi,

I'm currently working on some patches to the UDDF export format, to
address a few issues which I'm seeing in the files.

For example, I've separated buddies out, and linked to multiply
buddies, rather than the current method which is to always link to a
single buddy, which may actually be several in a comma separated list.

However, I'm noticing some big differences from the UDDF
specification. I'm not sure if this is essentially a bug in the UDDF
export, or if I'm missing something fundamental. It seems that the
implementer would have made a concious effort to implement it in this
way, and I can't find a reason why.

I'm referring to the UDDF spec here: http://www.uddf.org/

Here are a few examples of differences I've found:

In Subsurface UDDF, mutliple <dive_site> elements under <uddf> in the
following form:

  <dive_site id="Corsair Reef">
    <name>Corsair Reef</name>
    <geography>
      <location>Corsair Reef</location>
      <gps>
        <latitude>-4.610968</latitude>
        <longitude>55.407003</longitude>
      </gps>
    </geography>
  </dive_site>
  <dive_site id="Aquarium">
    <name>Aquarium</name>
    <geography>
      <location>Aquarium</location>
      <gps>
        <latitude>-4.598471</latitude>
        <longitude>55.415920</longitude>
      </gps>
    </geography>
  </dive_site>

In the UDDF spec, a single <divesite> (no '_'), containing 1..n
<divebase> and 1..n <site>

 <divesite>
        <divebase id="db-1">
            <!-- here description of the first dive base -->
        </divebase>
        <divebase id="db-2">
            <!-- here description of the second dive base -->
        </divebase>
        <divebase id="db-3">
            <!-- here description of the third dive base -->
        </divebase>
        <!-- here more <divebase> elements if necessary -->
        <site id="site-1">
            <!-- here description of the first dive site -->
        </site>
        <site id="site-2">
            <!-- here description of the second dive site -->
        </site>
  .... etc (http://www.streit.cc/extern/uddf_v320/en/divesite.html)

Also, linking of sites/buddies to profiles is done in Subsurface UDDF as:

         <buddy_ref ref="Jxxxx xxxx, Sxxxxx xxxxxx"/>
          <dive_site_ref ref="Stoney Cove"/>

In the UDDF spec, it should be:

         <link ref="Jxxxx xxxx, Sxxxxx xxxxxx"/>
        <link ref="Stoney Cove"/>

(http://www.streit.cc/extern/uddf_v320/en/sections_profiledata.html)

Some input would be gratefully received. I'd also like to know if
there are going to be barriers to having such a patch accepted.

Thanks



MartinHi,

I'm currently working on some patches to the UDDF export format, to
address a few issues which I'm seeing in the files.

For example, I've separated buddies out, and linked to multiply
buddies, rather than the current method which is to always link to a
single buddy, which may actually be several in a comma separated list.

However, I'm noticing some big differences from the UDDF
specification. I'm not sure if this is essentially a bug in the UDDF
export, or if I'm missing something fundamental. It seems that the
implementer would have made a concious effort to implement it in this
way, and I can't find a reason why.

I'm referring to the UDDF spec here: http://www.uddf.org/

Here are a few examples of differences I've found:

In Subsurface UDDF, mutliple <dive_site> elements under <uddf> in the
following form:

  <dive_site id="Corsair Reef">
    <name>Corsair Reef</name>
    <geography>
      <location>Corsair Reef</location>
      <gps>
        <latitude>-4.610968</latitude>
        <longitude>55.407003</longitude>
      </gps>
    </geography>
  </dive_site>
  <dive_site id="Aquarium">
    <name>Aquarium</name>
    <geography>
      <location>Aquarium</location>
      <gps>
        <latitude>-4.598471</latitude>
        <longitude>55.415920</longitude>
      </gps>
    </geography>
  </dive_site>

In the UDDF spec, a single <divesite> (no '_'), containing 1..n
<divebase> and 1..n <site>

 <divesite>
        <divebase id="db-1">
            <!-- here description of the first dive base -->
        </divebase>
        <divebase id="db-2">
            <!-- here description of the second dive base -->
        </divebase>
        <divebase id="db-3">
            <!-- here description of the third dive base -->
        </divebase>
        <!-- here more <divebase> elements if necessary -->
        <site id="site-1">
            <!-- here description of the first dive site -->
        </site>
        <site id="site-2">
            <!-- here description of the second dive site -->
        </site>
  .... etc (http://www.streit.cc/extern/uddf_v320/en/divesite.html)

Also, linking of sites/buddies to profiles is done in Subsurface UDDF as:

         <buddy_ref ref="Jxxxx xxxx, Sxxxxx xxxxxx"/>
          <dive_site_ref ref="Stoney Cove"/>

In the UDDF spec, it should be:

         <link ref="Jxxxx xxxx, Sxxxxx xxxxxx"/>
        <link ref="Stoney Cove"/>

(http://www.streit.cc/extern/uddf_v320/en/sections_profiledata.html)

Some input would be gratefully received. I'd also like to know if
there are going to be barriers to having such a patch accepted.

Thanks



Martin


More information about the subsurface mailing list