Closed dblodgett-usgs closed 1 year ago
Per the conversation at the GeoZarr spec call today, what I have in this PR around the deliverable is not necessarily correct. For now, we are just going to evolve https://github.com/zarr-developers/geozarr-spec/blob/main/geozarr-spec.md to accommodate the full suite of requirements of geozarr. How this is published as a normative standard is an open question. I will try to summarize where I think the group stands regarding that in an update to this PR.
@briannapagan @christophenoel @rabernat -- I think this now reflects where we stand?
Seems very good to me
@briannapagan -- can we discuss and edit/merge this and set some deadlines for the OGC submission tomorrow?
Yes, I will also commit some minor changes. Thanks David!
Note that I have created two weeks ago a branch for working on the OGC Charter (it includes the usual sections of OGC Charters): https://github.com/zarr-developers/geozarr-spec/blob/ogc-charter/CHARTER.adoc
On my side:
I won't be able attend the meeting today.
Per work on https://github.com/zarr-developers/geozarr-spec/blob/ogc-charter/CHARTER.adoc I'll close this PR.
Per the discussion in #11 -- I think this is where we've landed for how we are going to jump into this.
In discussion with Jonathan Gregory, I've been advised that our goals around origin/offset style coordinates are not actually out of line with the CF data model documented in Appendix I and that we should probably just go ahead using that CF data model and implementing the compact origin/offset style coordinate variables needed for direct geotiff compatibility as an implementation of the CF data model seperate from the NetCDF-CF convention. I've noted that in deliverables.
I'm not attached to any of this but wanted to move us along since it seems we are in agreement.