TC E-vote Comment 6: Split into a, b, c

[chris-little]

Comment 6 is split into separate issues: 6a,b,c.

`The attempt to provide a generic simple API to access Spatio-Temporal Resource may prove valuable to the OGC community. Such an API may act as a facade on top of other OGC APIs. However, given the current state of the specification, several unsolved aspects hinder reaching that goal and force us to vote 'No'

• The 'Environmental' part of the name (and the description of “Environmental Data Resource”) is already creating confusion in some communities ('Environmental' as in US EPA or EU EEA). As already mentioned by others, the API can go well beyond this. Why such a restrictive naming ?
• The relation of the proposed standard vis a vis the pre-existing and emerging OGC APIs is unclear : OGC API-Features, ST API and others
• And other semantic and technical aspects that are described here https://portal.ogc.org/files/?artifact_id=96471 `

[chris-little]

These are Issues #216, #217, and #218 arising from the TC E-vote Comments.