[Geopackage] New Blog Post

Jeff Yutzler jeffy at imagemattersllc.com
Sat Dec 17 21:46:06 EST 2016


I don't think Option 1 is going to happen. Option 3 can certainly be done.
I will attempt to accomplish Option 2 through the OAB.

I opened https://github.com/opengeospatial/geopackage/issues/278 in
response.
-Jeff

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Brad Hards <bradh at frogmouth.net> wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> I'm with Pepijn on this one.
>
> The document can't be silent on this.
>
> Pick one:
>  - Pick a specific solution. I'd prefer that, but it looks like this was
> hard
> for the SWG. It is still the best approach, so its worth a re-visit
>  - Provide a way to signal it in metadata. At least cover off geotiff
> pixel-as-area and pixel-as-point concepts, with a nod to DTED and LAS. I'd
> avoid GML coverage if possible, but OGC plays politics, so up to you.
>  - Be explicit about the problem - say it has to be communicated in some
> other
> document and admit there is no interoperable interpretation in the
> extension
> document.
>
> Brad
>
>
>
>


-- 
Jeff Yutzler
Image Matters LLC <http://www.imagemattersllc.com/>
Mobile: (703) 981-8753
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geopackage/attachments/20161217/7fd2dfe6/attachment.html>


More information about the Geopackage mailing list