summary of coverages sub-group meeting

Hi all

Here is a summary of the main points we talked about at the coverage
sub-group meeting last night.

- Requirements for coverages on the web, arising from a review of the use
cases:


   - can assign an identifier to a subset of a coverage dataset
   - can deliver a subset of a coverage dataset in a 'web-friendly' format
   (that might need defining! depends on which user group)
   - can describe the origin and processing that has happened to produce a
   coverage dataset (or subset)


- The DWBP group has defined a best practice around subsets but it is
difficult to make that requirement testable.  See
http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#EnableDataSubsetting

- 'subsetting' may not be the best term to describe selecting and
delivering parts of a coverage dataset.  Can we think of better alternatives

- is identifying a subset equivalent to an API or query URI that specifies
how to get it.  We should review the email discussion last year on
subsetting - starts in message
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Sep/0046.html ('What
should I link to')

- defining a subset of a gridded coverage in 'index space' is relatively
straightforward and gridded coverages represent a large proportion of
coverage data - therefore a good solution for this is worth having, even if
it doesn't solve all coverage subset problems.  There are existing
solutions to this and we shouldn't reinvent the wheel.

- there is a potential clash with the BP sub-group for future meeting
times.  (After the meeting Jeremy is attempting to resolve this via the
mailing list).

Full minutes here:
https://www.w3.org/2016/03/23-sdwcov-minutes