Skip to main content

Would be grateful for some advice on this. FME is refusing to load any data from this WFS service. I can see the set of layers (get capabilities) from the service when I try to add the reader but when I select the data layer I need and hit ok the log is giving me the error below.

This WFS service loads vectors just fine into Qgis but not FME. Any help would be appreciated.

http://www2.guildford.gov.uk/ishare5.2.web/getows....

The top-level type definition referred to by the 'type' attribute in the element declaration is missing from the XML Schema

QName: 'ms:ogc_fid' | namespace uri:'http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/mapserver'

QName: 'Integer' | namespace uri:'http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'

<element xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" name="ogc_fid" type="Integer"/>

Hi James,

I tried your URL in FME 2016 with these settings:

It worked for me..

The trick is to set "Ignore Application Schema" to "Yes". Might not be the proper way, but I did receive features from the WFS like that.


Hi James,

I tried your URL in FME 2016 with these settings:

It worked for me..

The trick is to set "Ignore Application Schema" to "Yes". Might not be the proper way, but I did receive features from the WFS like that.

Brilliant....works fine for me too! Thanks for taking the time to investigate.

regards

James


Brilliant....works fine for me too! Thanks for taking the time to investigate.

regards

James

No problem! :)

 

What still puzzles me is if FME has problems reading this application schema for some reason, or that QGIS just is more lenient (and ignores the application schema automatically if it fails validation, for instance).

No problem! :)

 

What still puzzles me is if FME has problems reading this application schema for some reason, or that QGIS just is more lenient (and ignores the application schema automatically if it fails validation, for instance).

I don't know firsthand but have overheard that QGIS generally ignores the application schema and hence is much more forgiving than we traditionally were. So we added the ignore option for cases like this. Glad it was helpful here.


Reply