POST
|
@MarceloMarques- Thank you for the link. I have seen this post in the past but they have updated the link for the ArcGIS Antivirus Guidance document. Are Sophos and CrowdStrike both tested and used in production at ESRI? Do you notice any benefits or downsides from one to the other in comparison? Thanks again, Kathleen
... View more
08-21-2024
08:49 AM
|
0
|
1
|
294
|
POST
|
@GregoryCarson- Thank you! Was there a reason you switched from CrowdStrike to Cortex? Do you notice any benefits or downsides from one to the other in comparison? Any issues with installation or upgrades? Thanks again! Kathleen
... View more
08-21-2024
08:45 AM
|
0
|
1
|
296
|
POST
|
@CodyPatterson- Thank you for the information! Did you have to configure all the exceptions as recommended in the ArcGIS Antivirus Guidance From my past experience most anti-virus software is destructive to the ArcGIS Enterprise suite and makes installation/upgrades downright impossible while the software is active. So I am really happy to receive a recommendation from someone with both GIS and IT experience. Thank you again! Kathleen
... View more
08-21-2024
08:20 AM
|
0
|
1
|
300
|
POST
|
I am looking for a new Antivirus Solution for ArcGIS Enterprise. Let me know what you are using!
... View more
08-21-2024
07:37 AM
|
0
|
10
|
351
|
POST
|
@BertKraan1 Did you ever find out which anti-virus you had installed? We are currently looking into a new anti-virus solution and apparently, this is one we would want to avoid. Thanks, Kathleen
... View more
08-20-2024
02:08 PM
|
0
|
0
|
317
|
IDEA
|
@AmirBar-Maor- We currently do not use sub-types for current and historical parcels. We wrote a custom process that exports the current and historical features into separate feature classes and created two separate sets of topology rules. One for all current features and one for all historic features. This process is not ideal because it will only identify the errors which then need to be corrected in the actual fabric and then re-exported and checked again after the data is corrected. If sub-types were built into the parcel fabric data model we would not need to do all these extra custom quality control checks. However, I really do like the idea of allowing SQL queries in the topology rules. That would beneficial in many scenarios.
... View more
06-06-2024
06:41 AM
|
0
|
0
|
298
|
IDEA
|
@AmirBar-Maor- Your comment about topology always running on the entire table is not correct. Topology can have different rules for different sub-types. Sub-typing the active and historic parcel types still seems to be the best solution to me.
... View more
06-05-2024
07:25 AM
|
0
|
0
|
642
|
POST
|
I did attempt to upgrade the metadata in ArcGIS Pro from the Catalog view. This did not bring in any of the existing FGDC CSDGM metadata. I could see the XML data in SQL Server. Just could not get it to display in Pro.
... View more
03-12-2024
12:45 PM
|
0
|
1
|
1046
|
POST
|
I am working on a python script that pulls the domain and subtype information from a feature class (or table) and uses that information to update the attribute and entity portion of the metadata. We are using the FGDC CSDGM standards. While testing my code I would manually make edits to a test dataset for validation and export the xml files to view the schema changes. In the ArcGIS Pro attribute editor this is found under Resource > Fields > Entity and Attribute Details When I add multiple enumerated domain values to an attribute a validation error pops up “at least one type of attribute domain is required.” And I get a red X on the Fields tab. The xml schema it creates for this attribute looks like this: <attr> <attrlabl>text_field</attrlabl> <attrdef>text field definition</attrdef> <attrdefs>text field definition source</attrdefs> <attrdomv> <edom> <edomv>v1</edomv> <edomvd>value 1</edomvd> <edomvds>test definition source</edomvds> </edom> <edom> <edomv>v2</edomv> <edomvd>value 2</edomvd> <edomvds>test definition source</edomvds> </edom> <edom> <edomv>v3</edomv> <edomvd>value 3</edomvd> <edomvds>test definition source</edomvds> </edom> </attrdomv> There is a single attribute domain value (attrdomv) tag with multiple enumerated domain (edom) tags nested inside of it. When I run this xml through the USGS metadata validation service (https://www1.usgs.gov/mp/) it reports the following error: Error Attribute_Domain_Values (5.1.2.4) permits only one of Enumerated_Domain (5.1.2.4.1) or Range_Domain (5.1.2.4.2) or Codeset_Domain (5.1.2.4.3) or Unrepresentable_Domain (5.1.2.4.4) When I manually alter the schema of the xml file to include multiple attribute domain value (attrdomv) tags each containing a single enumerated domain (edom) tag the error goes away. This is true in both the USGS validator and the built in validator in ArcGIS Pro. <attr> <attrlabl>text_field</attrlabl> <attrdef>text field definition</attrdef> <attrdefs>text field definition source</attrdefs> <attrdomv> <edom> <edomv>v1</edomv> <edomvd>value 1</edomvd> <edomvds>test definition source</edomvds> </edom> </attrdomv> <attrdomv> <edom> <edomv>v2</edomv> <edomvd>value 2</edomvd> <edomvds>test definition source</edomvds> </edom> </attrdomv> <attrdomv> <edom> <edomv>v3</edomv> <edomvd>value 3</edomvd> <edomvds>test definition source</edomvds> </edom> </attrdomv> However, the metadata editor now displays strangely for this layer. It is displaying an option to insert a new enumerated domain in between each already established domain. Is this a bug in the metadata editor? I am working with ArcGIS Pro v2.9.6 Lastly, I just want to confirm that the second example is the proper what to do this. Is it correct that each enumerated domain (edom) tag should be nested inside of its own attribute domain value (attrdomv) tag. Thank you, Kathleen
... View more
09-20-2023
10:50 AM
|
1
|
2
|
645
|
POST
|
We are running Pro 2.9.6 and have entered a domain for every field and still have the error "at least one type of attribute domain is required" also.
... View more
08-10-2023
08:45 AM
|
0
|
0
|
1274
|
POST
|
We have several feature classes stored in an SDE Enterprise Database that we created metadata for years ago. This metadata is stored in FGDC format. When I view the metadata in ArcCatalog 10.8.2 I am able to see the Summary and Description information that was entered on these feature classes. This is the same information I see in the abstract and purpose tags in the documentation field of the GDB_Items table. However, when I view the metadata in ArcGIS Pro 2.9.6, the Summary and Description are empty. Additionally, when I export the metadata to XML, the abstract and purpose tags are empty. Where does ArcGIS Pro pull the metadata information from? Is it the GDB_Items table? This is not specific to only the Summary and Description, other tags like the publication date, use limitations, etc are all behaving the same way... but Summary and Description are the main ones I am concerned about retrieving. How can I get the metadata that was entered in ArcCatalog years ago to be displayed and exported from Pro? My ArcGIS Pro options are set to view the metadata in FGDC CSDGM Metadata fomat. I have tried to upgrade the metadata and sync it with the data source... but neither of these tools fixed the issue with the metadata not being visible in Pro nor included it in the export to XML.
... View more
06-13-2023
11:45 AM
|
1
|
4
|
1636
|
POST
|
This was exactly what I was looking for and works perfectly in my application. However, at version 4.24 the watchUtils module is being depreciated and I read that it will be completely removed from the API at some future release. Do you know how to implement this same behavior using the new reactiveUtils module instead?
... View more
03-28-2023
11:04 AM
|
0
|
2
|
2019
|
POST
|
The parcel fabric features should be subtyped for active and historic. This should be implemented as part of the Parcel Fabric Data Model, as these are very distinctly different types of data. We are finding dangles on the active lines that do not show up in the topology because there is a historical line connected to it. I suspect as we start digging deeper there are going to be other topology issue we are missing due to the historical parcels being part of the validation. One example were this could be a big issue is if you are trying to check all active lots are covered by an active subdivision and the active lot is only covered by a retired subdivision. This will not get caught in the topology as it is. All of the fabric generated rules should be made for both types of data (active types and historic types)
... View more
01-20-2023
11:15 AM
|
0
|
1
|
1571
|
IDEA
|
I agree that the parcel fabric features should be subtyped for active and historic. This should be implemented as part of the Parcel Fabric Data Model. We are finding dangles on the active lines that do not show up in the topology because there is a historical line connected to it. I suspect as we start digging deeper there are going to be other topology issue we are missing due to the historical parcels being part of the validation. One example were this could be a big issue is if you are trying to check all active lots are covered by an active subdivision and the active lot is only covered by a retired subdivision. This will not get caught in the topology as it is. All of the fabric generated rules should be made for both types of data (active types and historic types)
... View more
01-20-2023
11:11 AM
|
0
|
0
|
1224
|
Title | Kudos | Posted |
---|---|---|
1 | 09-20-2023 10:50 AM | |
1 | 06-13-2023 11:45 AM | |
3 | 01-11-2022 07:33 AM | |
1 | 05-25-2022 10:27 AM | |
1 | 01-27-2021 02:40 PM |
Online Status |
Offline
|
Date Last Visited |
08-28-2024
09:57 PM
|