[Geopackage] Website updates & a question

Brad Hards bradh at frogmouth.net
Sat May 30 19:02:36 EDT 2015


On Sat, 30 May 2015 12:11:21 PM Chris Holmes wrote:
> Hey, I've been meaning to do this for awhile, but just made a pull request
> so the 'implementations' listed are more consistent. Focused on just what
> version of software supports which parts of geopackage, and linking out.
+1

> https://github.com/opengeospatial/geopackage/pull/100
> 
> I may make some more pull requests if I can find some time, on data, and
> maybe some small edits on the first paragraph.
It would be good if we can identify actual implementations, versus users of 
those implementations. That will give us a much better view of the real  
state. So we have geotools and geoserver, but the geoserver implementation is 
pretty much just geotools. It'll get messier for layers where (say) FME SAFE 
is just using GDAL 2.0, and GDAL (say) uses spatialite for vectors but  brings 
in some extra capabilities for tiles.

Of course, if this is just supposed to be marketing, ignore me.

> One thing I was surprised by is this 'reference implementation' from ERDC.
> I searched the group and didn't find much reference to this. Why is it
> called a reference implementation? Was it made in conjunction with a test
> suite? It also looks like it only implements tiles? To me it seems like a
> reference implementation should be complete.
Not just complete, but tested and found fully compliant against the compliance 
suite.

> Unless someone has a compelling reason I'd like to remove 'reference
> implementation' from the language around it, unless it's developed in
> tandem with an OGC test suite.
+1.

Brad


More information about the Geopackage mailing list