NOTE: The galeon
mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
HI, I agree with Simon's description - but it would not be difficult to generalize the current coverage concept to allow the domain to be other than a spatial-temporal region. Ron
Sent: May 12, 2005 6:53 PMYes.Perhaps the most important differences between the GML/ISO concept of "coverage" and netCDF and allies are:1. netCDF etc support rather generalised mappings between arrays.Thus the "domain" of the data (the independent variable, if you like) is notreally contrained.In contrast, a geospatial coverage is a specialisation in which the domainmust be spatio-temporal, i.e. between 1 and 4 dimensions.As Ron points out, JP2K is even more restricted in this sense - it onlysupports 2D domains.2. There is explicit support for registering the domain of a geospatial coverage to real-world locations - the most well-known is where the domain is a rectified grid, but other geometries may be used which are tied to aspatial reference system.3. As Ron points out, an "Observation" is the act of collecting some valuesassociated with a target.The "result" of an observation is essentially parallel to the "range" in acoverage. The "target" of an observation is parallel to the "domain".The Observation viewpoint focusses on the observation event, and is primarily a means to access metadata associated with property values - howthey were obtained, when, by whone, etc.This is of interest when trying to assess data reliability, and for datainsertion.Futher down the chain, Observation/result values will often be collated into "coverages" in preparation for some analysis, anomaly or feature-detection,etc.But it is very much the case that the structure of a "coverage" when expressed as a map of the range over the domain is the same as the structureof a an observation which maps a result to a target.See https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/twiki/bin/view/Xmml/ObservationsAndMeasurementsfor some detail.Simon
galeon
archives: