bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com
Wed Aug 17 13:58:04 PDT 2016
I can also see the potential of this format.
I like the potential for tying in the Observations and Measurements Observed Property with associated community agreed definitions to the coverage. This has been a missing piece of the puzzle for some time.
I understand that Jon and his team would welcome collaboration to further test and develop the format.
I expect that Jon will respond when he gets back off his holiday.
> On 17 Aug 2016, at 19:03, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bruce and Jon,
> I went through the spec, and I like it in general (not that it would be so important)
> JSON usage is certainly still growing, so is size of the data. Are you guys using the CoverageJSON in some application already? I like the metadata verbosity, and overall readiness for international environment.
> Have you been thinking about data compression too? For raster data, this could be key issue IMHO.
> good luck
> čt 11. 8. 2016 v 0:47 odesílatel Bruce Bannerman <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> napsal:
>> Are any projects doing any work with the emerging data format, CoverageJSON?
>> - https://covjson.org/
>> - https://github.com/covjson/specification/blob/master/spec.md
>> I understand that this is still a work in progress, but is in a fairly stable state at the moment.
>> If anyone has looked at the format in detail, what are your thoughts on its viability for:
>> - data exchange; and
>> - to underpin spatial and image analysis?
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Discuss