On Feb 1, 2008 7:21 PM, Martin Desruisseaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jody Garnett a écrit : > > a) the api changes that are happening; is this part of the expected long > > term GeoAPI plan? (if so it would fall outside our proposal page process) > > No, this views stuff (geophysics, packed, etc.) do not appear at all in > GeoAPI. > They do not appears in any OGC/ISO specification I'm aware of. I don't plan to > bring that stuff in GeoAPI since I suspect that it would be highly > controversial > (it is already in GeoTools alone). > > This stuff exists only because I try very hard to conciliate two worlds: > > - data as floating point values in geophysics space. > - video cards (through Java2D) which work best with > integer values in RGB space.
How would you classify data like GTOPO30 and GTOPO60 which are elevation data, 16 bits unsigned where the No Data values is -9999? Or DTED (Military Elevation Data) which are as well 16 bits unsigned, or SRTM () which are signed integers elevations that can range from -32767 to 32767 meters, encompassing the range of elevation to be found on the Earth. Nodata are flagged with the value -32768. This data cannot be visualized directly, but they would not even be strictly "geophysics", moreover there is no specific colormap to apply and also there is a Nodata value which is an integer and not NaN. > > This is controversial for good reasons, but I try very very hard to preserve > the > geophysics meaning of images, otherwise the whole coverage module would become > pointless to me (even if RGB images have a lot of values for other users, I'm > not myself in those fields. This explain why RGB support was poor in the first > place). > I think that nobody ever suggested id to remove the concept of geophysics but rather to not base the whole coverage module on that concept. > > > > b) I noticed trunk depending on GeoAPI 2.2-SNAPSHOT; is this correct or > > is there a GeoAPI 2.3-SNAPSHOT we should be using > > Yes it is correct. There is no GeoAPI 2.3 as far as I known? > > The pending API change in GeoAPI coverage are about replacing the old OGC > 01-004 > specification by ISO 19123. This is yet an other topic. The geophysics / > photographic / packed views issues is unrelated to either OGC 01-004 and ISO > 19123. > > > > Martin I think you are stressed out on a deadline are you not? Can I > > help set up the proposal page for you ... it will at least let me catch > > up on all this email. > > We just created the following page: > > http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Improve+support+of+RGB+coverages > > but this is just a skeleton for now (we are just starting the work on wiki > side > - I admit that this is a very late stage). Better later than never :-). Anyway it would be great if you could start to write something about what your proposal would be, I think that wass the original purpose if this http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOT/GeoTools+change+proposal. Ciao, Simone. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Geotools-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel > -- ------------------------------------------------------- Eng. Simone Giannecchini President /CEO GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via Carignoni 51 55041 Camaiore (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584983027 fax: +39 0584983027 mob: +39 333 8128928 http://www.geo-solutions.it ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
