search

opengeospatial / CRS-Deformation-Models

CRS Domain Working Group Deformation Models project
7 stars 6 forks source link

Comment from public review: 4 - metadata issues #60

Closed ccrook closed 10 months ago

ccrook commented 1 year ago
  1. Evaluator: Jack McCubbine, Anna Riddell (Geoscience Australia)

PART B

  1. Requirement: [General, #] More Meta data. Include a meta data field to describe the gridded velocity vector geometry for deformation grids.

  2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #] Deformation Model Functional Model

  3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.] Minor

  4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments] InSAR derived velocity vector deformation models are rarely in a (N/S)(E/W)(U/D) geometry and velocity vectors often point in a more arbitrary geometry (generally) corresponding to the line of sight (LOS) of the satellite. It would be good to include a meta data field/s which describes the LOS geometry.

PART B

  1. Requirement: [General, #] More Meta data. Include a meta data field to describe the source of the data and method used to determine the model.

  2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #] Deformation Model Functional Model

  3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.] Minor

  4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments] Towards transparency. N/A

PART B

  1. Requirement: [General, #] More Meta data for gravity field models. Consider a meta data field to describe the underlying constants use in gravity field models.

  2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #] The Geodetic data Grid eXchange Format (GGXF)

  3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.] Minor

  4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments] It would be useful to include the full stack of parameters (where applicable) in the header data in the gcf format for the spherical harmonic models and a zero degree term (W_0). http://icgem.gfz-potsdam.de/ICGEM-Format-2011.pdf
    This would facilitate a better understanding of the compatibility and points of different between models.

ccrook commented 10 months ago

InSAR based model: This suggestion is not accepted as it is outside the scope of the specification, which is deformation models for coordinate transformations. The existing metadata fields can include definition of source, etc. The specific formulation of metadata is defined by the carrier rather than in this functional model definition.