Re: The Multiple types of coverage requirement

I am quite ok with the UCR expressed as it is, but I note that our use cases do not actually require very many of these multiple types and I suggest that we should look more closely at * which* of the multiple types we really need as we go progress. I would like to suggest that we make a note of this in the UCR, attached to this requirement, to prevent  the "multiple" being interpreted as"all that have ever been thought of" .

note- i am prepared to back down on the request for the note, as  I think argued almost contradictorily in the case of "multiple" applied to "multilingual" in last week's meeting. Although in that language case I saw no harm other than realism in attacking every conceivable language, but in the coverage case I think there is a risk of harm in confusion if we take  on too many, which is worse.

Kerry



On 29 May 2015, at 11:47 pm, "Peter Baumann" <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de<mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>> wrote:

Frans-

here a slate (not comprehensive, but likely covering all considered by W3C currently):
- gridded coverages:
    - by dimension: 1-D through 4-D (climate people also consider 5-D)
    - by grid type:
        - regular grid (equidistant spacing ("resolution"), such as ortho imagery)
        - irregular grids (grid lines have individual spacing per axis, such as timeseries often have)
        - warped grids (grid points sit anywhere in space, but still topologically isomorphic to a grid)
        - sensor grids (geo position of grid points determined by sensor model, usually some involved non-linear algorithm)
- non-gridded coverages:
    - point clouds
    - (rest likely not of interest here)

cheers,
Peter


On 05/29/15 14:36, Frans Knibbe wrote:
Hello Alejandro,

I am looking at the Multiple types of coverage<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#MultipleTypesOfCoverage> requirement now: "It should be possible to represent many different types of coverage."

Does this mean some kind of standard classification of coverage types is required, so the coverage type can be indicated in the metadata for example?

Or does this mean that there should be standard encodings for different coverage types?

Greetings,
Frans

--
Frans Knibbe
Geodan
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
www.geodan.nl<http://www.geodan.nl>
disclaimer<http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>



--
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann<http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann>
   mail: p.baumann@jacobs-university.de<mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>
   tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com<http://www.rasdaman.com>, mail: baumann@rasdaman.com<mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com>
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)