3) Participation in a european geoserver codesprint and in the geoserver
tele-conference doesn't make much sense from the Geomatys side of things
since no one has looked at geoserver in several months and no one is
working on it right now. Perhaps next year.
It wouldn't be exclusively a geoserver codesprint, and indeed there's no
way it could be with the amount of collaboration we do at the geotools
level. We may try to piggyback on a general OSGeo sprint, but even if
we don't we'd still want to try to get uDig folk and general GeoTools
people there. And you could completely work on whatever is your
priorities at the time. So I guess I don't consider not looking at
geoserver in several months a good enough excuse ;)
Chris
All the best,
--adrian
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 01:42 +0100, Simone Giannecchini wrote:
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
!DSPAM:4005,47a6efcf265922458217002!
begin:vcard
fn:Chris Holmes
n:Holmes;Chris
org:The Open Planning Project
adr:;;349 W. 12th Street, #3;New York;NY;10014;USA
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Managing Director, Strategic Development
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://topp.openplans.org
version:2.1
end:vcard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
