Re: Absence of key scientific spatial data formats within common formats to implementation of Best Practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi Bill,
Response inline

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com> wrote:

> Hi Lewis
>
> Thanks for the very useful input on scientific data formats.  I don't
> remember exactly the background to the list of spatial formats that was the
> starting point for this thread, but although those formats like GML,
> GeoJSON etc can encode 'data', I (and perhaps others?) tend to think of
> those as formats for 'geometry' whereas I think of NetCDF as a format for
> 'data'.
>
> Anyway, I don't want to get into that, I just want to note that I'm one of
> the editors of the Coverages sub-group and the points you have raised in
> recent emails are very relevant for that.  The main issues we are
> discussing in that group relate to 'web-friendly' formats for coverage data
> (whatever web-friendly turns out to mean in that context!) and approaches
> to identifying and retrieving extracts (aka subsets) of Coverage data.
>

Thanks for letting me know. I will be engaging with the coverage sub group
now. This is great.


>
> For both of those, it would be great to get your input and to make sure we
> take due consideration of use cases that are important to JPL, NASA etc.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>

Thanks Bill.
Lewis