NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
sorry, too late at night - now with attachment. Peter Baumann wrote:
Ron- answers inline: Ron Lake wrote:Peter, Ethan etc. I think it is misleading to talk about everything other than the coverage range values ("pixels") as metadata. Metadata only makes sense when you say what you mean by Data. Then metadata can be ABOUT the data. In the case of Coverages - we create a kind of object (i.e. data) called coverage and then we can have information ABOUT that coverage object - and this (creator, owner) is metadata.as metadata are "about data" they actually can exist on any level - my level's metadata may well be part of your level's data. From my low-level pixel view ;-) I see all above the pixels as metadata, upfront. A further distinction that I feel comfortable with is shown in the picture attached. It allows for a technically motivated distinction of the various levels. In this view your metadata would be level 3 metadata.Also, I don't like to think of XML encoding as a format since this usually implies binding to a file organization/structure.yes, of course - XML is describing a file format, isn't it? This notwithstanding that for an XML document there may exist different representations, such as ASCII and compressed (cf TIFF!). -Peter
galeon archives: