<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<p>Hello Chris</p>
<p>Thanks for your reply.<br>
</p>
<p>Le 05/12/2019 à 19:00, Chris Crook a écrit :</p>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A87E66F06E86F14B857F2EB047CDF9323148BA31@prdassexch01.ad.linz.govt.nz">
<p class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">As you rightly say there is also
a lot value in a standardisation process with OGC,
though of course that is a (much much) longer process.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Just for information, from the presentation we had at OGC, it
seems that ESRI wants to go relatively fast too (1~3 years in my
understanding).</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A87E66F06E86F14B857F2EB047CDF9323148BA31@prdassexch01.ad.linz.govt.nz">
<p class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On HDF5 vs GeoTIFF.. As you
rightly say apart from some details this proposal is largely
format agnostic. I know the ESRI GGXF initiative is now
proposing using HDF5, and certainly that could serve as well.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A possible approach could be to put table(s) mapping the document
attributes to CF-Conventions attributes when a match exists (i.e.
to draft what it would looks like if the data were in a HDF5
file). It may help to compare the formats. But I realize that it
would require more work, this is not a request.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A87E66F06E86F14B857F2EB047CDF9323148BA31@prdassexch01.ad.linz.govt.nz">
<p class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Curiously I did propose HDF5 as
an option for deformation models a while ago, but at that time
there wasn't much appetite for using it as (IIRC) it wasn't so
well suited to deploying with online web services.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> Its seems that HDF5 viewers exist in JavaScript since 2016 [1],
and other readers are yet more recent [2]. Maybe they were missing
at time of your proposal. But I admit that HDF5 support in
browsers is not as old as GeoTIFF supports.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A87E66F06E86F14B857F2EB047CDF9323148BA31@prdassexch01.ad.linz.govt.nz">
<p class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">(…snip…) I found as I was
developing this proposal that there seemed to be more advantages
to a multiple file implementation. Because GeoTIFF provides the
nested grid capability the number of files is not excessive
(unlike the LINZ publication format as individual grids). One
advantage is that different versions of the deformation model
will only differ in a few of the component files. Most would be
common to the versions, so using a multiple file implementation
allows these to be shared.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Thanks for the insight. Together with Even questions in his
previous email it help me to understand better.</p>
<p> Regards,</p>
<p> Martin<br>
</p>
<pre>[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/HDF-NI">https://github.com/HDF-NI</a>
[2] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/usnistgov/jsfive">https://github.com/usnistgov/jsfive</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>