Fantastic! Thanks for putting that page together, it will make much easier the process of coming to grips with all aspects of this work.
A suggestion for the blue introductory box at the top of the page. If you were willing to add a tiny bit more background, I think it could be helpful to many people arriving at the page. Here's a prototype although you'll have to check on the accuracy and possibly flesh out the relevant docs since you understand this so much better than I do. ************************************************************************ This page serves as a central point of contact to collect all relevant information pertaining to a major improvement in the Geotools implementation of 'coverages'. Coverages are particular types of Features which guarantee that, wherever the coverage is defined spatio-temporally (the domain), the coverage always has one (or several) attribute value(s) defined. The idea of coverage is presented in: OGC Reference Model, Abstract Spec, Section 3.4 OGC Abstract Spec, Topic 6, "The Coverage Type and its SubTypes" Since its original version and up to early 2006 and version 2.2, GeoTools has used an implementation of coverages which followed the OGC Standard xxxxxxxx. This standard was sufficient to support the simple coverages required for simple features. This effort aims to transition to a more complex and richer formulation of coverages defined by ISO 19123 (also OGC xxxxx). The principal difference will be that the new coverages will support... ********************************************************************** or something of the sort. cheers, adrian On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 18:59 -0700, Bryce L Nordgren wrote: > > Adrian Custer wrote on 03/03/2006 08:16:29 AM: > > > Hey, > > > > Congratulations on all the work. > > > > (I'm working to get to the point where I can intelligently comment on > > the > > coverage work but I'm not yet ready.) > > > > Any chance you could add to the description/introduction a blurb about > > how this fits into all the coverage working going on with Geotools (for > > version x in early 2006)? I assume this is the proposal to transition > > from 'coverages for simple features' to something more complex. Also I'm > > not at all clear about the 2.2 versioning. This will be(/is it) part of > > Geotools 2.2? > > Worthy questions. You prompted me to construct this page a little earlier > than planned, so it's a little "premature". Let me know if more > information needs to be added. This page attempts to consolidate the > pre-implementation work into one spot, provide an "implementation effort > primer", and also provide a summary and status board for all coverage > implementation related Jira issues in both GeoAPI and GeoTools space. > Because it tries to do so much, it will probably fail at everything. :) > > http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Coverage+Implementation+Central > > > Bryce > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
