RE: OGC Ottawa TC meeting highlights

• To: "Roy Mendelssohn" <Roy.Mendelssohn@xxxxxxxx>, <Ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: RE: OGC Ottawa TC meeting highlights
• From: "Ron Lake" <rlake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 08:54:06 -0700

HI Roy:

I would say you are both "right"

You are thinking of feature as a vector object - this is not the
definition in the OGC nor in the ISO.  I think we need a word for this
vector feature or conventional feature - but we currently don't have
one.  Feature in OGC and ISO means the object of interest in the domain.
It is in this sense that a coverage is a feature.  Now in the sense of
features as vector objects (the more restricted meaning you are using)
one might have properties which are coverage valued or which varying
over some geometry of the feature.

Cheers

Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roy Mendelssohn
Sent: May 8, 2007 8:39 AM
To: Ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Unidata GALEON
Subject: Re: OGC Ottawa TC meeting highlights


On Apr 30, 2007, at 8:41 AM, Ben Domenico wrote:

The underlying unifying concept is that a "coverage" is in fact a special case of a "feature" and ncML-GML and CSML dialects of GML can provide the needed "wrapper."

I think this is backward. I like the approach Simon Cox takes in the talk he gave at AGU last December, where a coverage is a feature that varies over one of its coordinate axes. Thus a feature is a "collapsed" coverage, not the other way around. If feature gets to be defined that broadly it loses all meaning.

-Roy

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: OGC Ottawa TC meeting highlights
    • From: Ben Domenico

• References:
  • Re: OGC Ottawa TC meeting highlights
    • From: Roy Mendelssohn