search

opengeospatial / CoverageJSON

Public repo for CoverageJSON project
Apache License 2.0
11 stars 8 forks source link

PC03: Support coverages as per standard, or rename #6

Closed chris-little closed 3 years ago

chris-little commented 3 years ago

Comment, 25 June 2021:

  1. Requirement: General
  2. Implementation Specification Section number: all
  3. Criticality: critical
  4. Comments/justifications for changes: either make it support coverages as per standard, or rename it to not continue any reference coverages
chris-little commented 3 years ago

  1. CoverageJSON is a de facto community, open source, format that is being proposed as an OGC Community Standard. Renaming would serve no benefit to the user communities, and OGC Members, and the Supporters, do not have the power to rename.

  2. There are no benefits to community users in changing, at this stage, the successful, widely used, community implementations. We are proposing that any changes be considered for future work, within the OGC. This gives the community the benefit of a focal point for future developments.

  3. CoverageJSON is a data format, not a set of functions as defined by the ISO19123 standards, but it does support the items needed for coverage functions such as an explicit domain set, and implicit range set returned as a defined data record. CoverageJSON can support both discrete and continuous coverages, in the sense of ISO19123.

  4. It is not clear that CoverageJSON is better or worse than other data formats supporting coverages, such as GeoTiff and NetCDF. That is why the Business Justification proposes a plan of work to investigate this in detail and propose CoverageJSON developments within the OGC standards framework.

The Supporters unanimously reject this comment on the grounds that outside of OGC, there is no power to change the specification or rename it, but this is possible within OGC.

pebau commented 3 years ago

Hm...can the supporters rightfully reject? If the name "coverage" is used I cannot see how the Coverages SWG can get bypassed.

chris-little commented 3 years ago

@pebau Of course the supporters [can] rightfully reject - they are responsible for their software investments and to their users. There is no intention that `Coverages SWG can get bypassed'. The Community Standard process does not need a SWG or DWG - it needs the supporters to propose a document to OGC. Once the CoverageJSON document is an OGC document, some Coverage SWG members have agreed to work on a detailed comparison (Discussion Paper) and this should produce some well-founded recomendations for the way forward. That is up to the Coverages SWG. Meanwhile, CoverageJSON users are doing their own thing outwith OGC.

The group had agreed that your original issue above was addressed and could be closed.