[Requests] Review of OGC Tile Matrix Set Standard Candidate (17-083)

Clemens Portele portele at interactive-instruments.de
Wed Jul 25 08:38:02 EDT 2018


PART A

1. Evaluator: Clemens Portele, portele at interactive-instruments.de<mailto:portele at interactive-instruments.de>

2. Submission: OGC Tile Matrix Set Standard Candidate, 17-083


PART B

1. Requirement: General
2. Implementation Specification Section number: Title
3. Criticality: Minor
4. Comments/justifications for changes: Should "2D" be included in the title to avoid confusion with tiling schemes of a higher dimension, e.g. in the 3D services?

1. Requirement: #1
2. Implementation Specification Section number: Figure 5, Table 1
3. Criticality: Major
4. Comments/justifications for changes: Multiplicities are not consistent betwee figure 5 and table 1. For example supportedCRS. The values in Table 1 are probably the correct multiplicities.

1. Requirement: #1
2. Implementation Specification Section number: Table 2, tileWidth / tileHeight
3. Criticality: Major
4. Comments/justifications for changes: A width/height in pixels is only applicable to bitmap tiles, but not for vector tiles. Clarify how the data model is applicable for vector tiles.

1. Requirement: General, e.g. requirement 8
2. Implementation Specification Section number: General, e.g. 8.1
3. Criticality: Editorial
4. Comments/justifications for changes: Instead of "MIME type" use "media type".

1. Requirement: General, e.g. requirement 8
2. Implementation Specification Section number: General, e.g. 8.1
3. Criticality: Major
4. Comments/justifications for changes: Media type requirements imply access via HTTP (or distribution by email). This does not seem to be consistent with the stated standardization target types?

1. Requirement: 7, 10, 15, etc.
2. Implementation Specification Section number: 8, 9, B
3. Criticality: Major
4. Comments/justifications for changes: XML and JSON schemas are mentioned, but not referenced. Annex B is empty. Provide links, without the schemas a review must be incomplete and the draft is not implementable. The document should have another review before progressing further in the process.

1. Requirement: General
2. Implementation Specification Section number: General
3. Criticality: Major
4. Comments/justifications for changes: There are a large nunber of inconsistencies in the document. For example, the XML encoding contains JSON requirements or the second comment above. The editors should review the document for such inconsistencies before the next review.


Best regards,
Clemens

--
Clemens Portele
portele at interactive-instruments.de<mailto:portele at interactive-instruments.de>
+49 228 9141073 (office)
+49 151 15298497 (mobile)
cportele (skype)

interactive instruments Gesellschaft für Software-Entwicklung mbH
Trierer Str. 70-72, 53115 Bonn, Germany
Geschäftsführer: Remigius Koblenzer, Clemens Portele
Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 3872

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/attachments/20180725/20982c9d/attachment.html>


More information about the Requests mailing list