Thanks Jachym. 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. Bruce > On 17 Aug 2016, at 19:03, Jachym Cepicky <[email protected]> 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 > > Jachym > > čt 11. 8. 2016 v 0:47 odesílatel Bruce Bannerman > <[email protected]> napsal: >> Hi, >> >> Are any projects doing any work with the emerging data format, CoverageJSON? >> >> See: >> >> - 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? >> >> Bruce >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
