On Apr 30, 2007, at 8:41 AM, Ben Domenico wrote:
The underlying unifying concept is that a "coverage" is in fact a
special case of a "feature" and ncML-GML and CSML dialects of GML
can provide the needed "wrapper."
I think this is backward. I like the approach Simon Cox takes in the
talk he gave at AGU last December, where a coverage is a feature that
varies over one of its coordinate axes. Thus a feature is a
"collapsed" coverage, not the other way around. If feature gets to
be defined that broadly it loses all meaning.
-Roy
