Re: Coverage subgroup - document for discussion

I've put some detail on the page to identity
different possible directions for this aspect.

FYI My project with OGC is concerned with UC1 and UC2, which seems
complementary to the other activites supporting this thread.

Rob Atkinson

On Wed, 18 May 2016 at 20:45 Bill Roberts <> wrote:

> Thanks Jon, that's a useful perspective.  Certainly we talk about making
> discovery and retrieval of the data easier, working nicely with web-based
> technology etc - so we need to be clear about 'easier for whom'.
> Inevitably different people will want different things so we will have to
> be explicit about our priorities.
> The existing use cases cover quite a few of the scenarios you have
> sketched out, but they don't yet link those to these kind of user
> personas.  That might be worth doing - it probably wouldn't take long.
> On 18 May 2016 at 11:35, Jon Blower <> wrote:
>> Hi Bill, all,
>> Just some initial thoughts in advance of our telecon. There is lots of
>> good stuff in here, and it’s all relevant to the general area of
>> “Coverages”. Some of these issues are of course very complex and I don’t
>> think we’ll solve them all – and in fact this group might not be the best
>> place to do so.
>> I wonder if it would help to structure the document and our thinking
>> around the different audiences we might aim at. For example:
>>  * A “web developer” might need some explanation of what a coverage is
>> (“dummies’ guide”). He/she would probably like a simple API to access them,
>> and some simple formats with which he/she is familiar. The applications are
>> likely to be reasonable simple and visualisation-oriented, rather than
>> “deep” analysis.
>>  * A “spatial data publisher” might already be familiar with the
>> terminology, but might want to know how to make his/her data more
>> discoverable by mass-market search engines, or how best to make use of
>> Linked Data and semantic stuff. He/she is probably going to be keen to
>> describe coverage data very precisely (e.g. using the “right” CRS and
>> full-res geometries), but is also interested in the cost/benefit tradeoff.
>>  * A “data analyst/scientist” might be interested in quality and
>> uncertainty, and how to bring coverage data into his/her tools (e.g. GIS,
>> Python scripts). This kind of person may just want to download the data
>> files in an unmodified form, although data-extraction services can be
>> useful in some circumstances (and hosted processing is increasingly
>> popular).
>>  * An “environmental consultant” may have very limited time to perform
>> some kind of analysis to form part of a report. If a dataset is hard to
>> find, access or understand it will probably simply be omitted from the
>> analysis. Often interested in a very specific geographic area. Needs to
>> quickly establish that a dataset is trustworthy,
>>  * An “IT provider” might be interested in scalable and maintainable web
>> services for high-volume data that can be made part of his/her
>> organisation’s operational procedures. He/she probably has a low tolerance
>> for high-complexity or “bleeding edge” technology.
>> This is just off the top of my head, and there are certainly more, and
>> there will also be lots of overlap. And I’m sure there’s lots to argue
>> about there. But this helps me, at least, put some structure on the Big
>> List. For each of these kinds of user, what would be the most useful thing
>> that we could do to help them (maybe a new technology, or a recommendation
>> to use something existing, or an admission that the problem remains
>> unsolved), in the context of this group?
>> (Am I just reinventing the Use Cases here, or is this still useful for
>> the Coverage requirements?)
>> Cheers,
>> Jon
>> From: Bill Roberts <>
>> Date: Tuesday, 17 May 2016 23:44
>> To: "" <>
>> Subject: Coverage subgroup - document for discussion
>> Resent-From: <>
>> Resent-Date: Tuesday, 17 May 2016 23:44
>> Hi all
>> I've made some initial notes on requirements in this wiki page:
>> I'd like to go through this on the call tomorrow (we probably won't get
>> all the way through it as there is quite a lot there).  If you are joining
>> the call it would be great if you could look at it in advance.
>> Comments also welcome via this mailing list.
>> Cheers
>> Bill

Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2016 12:50:43 UTC