Re: Issue 27: correction of the description of the Coverage in Linked Data deliverable

On 2015-10-10 07:43, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>
> Ø  OGC's Coverage Implementation Schema (CIS, formerly GML 3.2.1 Application
> Schema - Coverages, GMLCOV) is interoperable indeed, and maps to standard
> formats, such as GML, GeoTIFF, and NetCDF.
>
>  
>
> Sorry to be persnickety, but I don’t understand this.
>
>  
>
> The abstract model in ISO 19123 provides the structures for mapping from any
> coverage implementation to any other.
>

so, to explain again (as can be read in the next sentence of my text provided:
19123 is abstract in its concepts, it does not prescribe _specific_ mappings,
concise enough to ensure that these 2 implementations you mention  will in
general not be interoperable. Plenty of examples exist. For example, WaterML is
not interoperable with GMLCOV/CIS although both are based on 19123.

>  
>
> The GMLCOV and its proposed successor the OGC Coverage Implementation Schema
> provides a concrete implementation of a significant subset of coverages used
> in practice, /but not all /(e.g. WaterML2, TimeseriesML). And I can’t see the
> SDWWG recommending to drop netCDF, GeoTIFF, WaterML2, TimeseriesML in favour
> of CIS (it fails the laugh test). So what status do you propose for CIS in the
> context of SDWWG?
>

I can't see me recommending to drop netCDF or GeoTIFF, as CIS allows all that.
Also JPEG2000, etc.
TimeseriesML has a reference to GMLCOV / CIS, it utilizes it:
    <xs:import namespace="http://www.opengis.net/gmlcov/1.0" .../>
Re WaterML, I am not aware of any harmonization attempt with CIS, but that could
certainly be done, as has been discussed. So this is the only "island of
incompatible coverage schema" I am aware of.

Not sure about that the "laugh test" means, so I do not comment on this, I just
observe that GMLCOV/CIS is the widest spread approach to representing coverages,
also in terms of functionality support.

-Peter

>  
>
> Simon
>
>  
>
> *From:*Peter Baumann [mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de]
> *Sent:* Saturday, 10 October 2015 5:07 AM
> *To:* Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>; SDW WG Public List
> <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Issue 27: correction of the description of the Coverage in
> Linked Data deliverable
>
>  
>
> Frans-
>
> yes, you are exactly right.
> Phrasing proposal:
> "ISO 19123 defines an abstract coverage model whose implementations are not
> guaranteed to be interoperable (actually, various implementations expressly
> based on ISO 19213 exist which in fact are not interoperable, as has been
> shown by OGC surveys). OGC's Coverage Implementation Schema (CIS, formerly GML
> 3.2.1 Application Schema - Coverages, GMLCOV) is interoperable indeed, and
> maps to standard formats, such as GML, GeoTIFF, and NetCDF. CIS 1.1 is planned
> by ISO TC211 to become ISO 19123-2, as the concrete counterpart to abstract
> 19123, which will be renamed to 19123-1 (resolved by TC211 WG 6 in June 2015).
> Therefore, the coverage schema adopted by SWD WG should be compatible with
> forthcoming ISO 19123-2 aka OGC CIS 1.1."
>
> HTH,
> Peter
>
> On 2015-10-09 14:28, Frans Knibbe wrote:
>
>     Issue 27 <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/27> is a special
>     one, because it is about one of the deliverables. The Coverage in Linked
>     Data deliverable <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/charter#cov> reads "The
>     WG will develop a formal Recommendation for expressing discrete coverage
>     data conformant to the ISO 19123 abstract model. ..."
>
>      
>
>     Peter explained that this statement probably requires some adjustment, see
>     this message
>     <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Apr/0024.html>,
>     otherwise the deliverable will not have the proper foundation.
>
>      
>
>     Do I understand correctly that is is a matter of saying that the
>     Recommendation will not be based on ISO-19123, but on ISO-19123-2 (the
>     soon to be published ISO version of the OGC Coverage Implementation Schema
>     1.1)?
>
>      
>
>     We can not change the charter text, but we could add a clarification (a
>     note) in the chapter about deliverables in the UCR document (Ed, Kerry or
>     Phil: is that correct?).
>
>      
>
>     If the assumption above are correct, could someone suggest a good wording
>     for the note that should be added?
>
>      
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Frans
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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)
>  
>  

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: 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, mail: 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)